Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Politeness in Intercultural Communication: Some Insights intothe Pragmatics of English as an International Language
Item type text; Electronic Dissertation
Authors Kuchuk, Alexandra
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to thismaterial is made possible by the University Libraries,University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproductionor presentation (such as public display or performance) ofprotected items is prohibited except with permission of theauthor.
Downloaded 26-Mar-2018 10:30:20
Link to item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/238633
POLITENESS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION:
SOME INSIGHTS INTO THE PRAGMATICS OF ENGLISH AS AN
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE
by
Alexandra Kuchuk
_____________________
Copyright © Alexandra Kuchuk 2012
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
GRADUATE INTERDISCIPLINARY DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND TEACHING
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2012
2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Alexandra Kuchuk entitled POLITENESS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION: SOME INSIGHTS INTO THE PRAGMATICS OF ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/27/2012
Perry Gilmore _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/27/2012
Linda Waugh _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/27/2012
Jonathon Reinhardt Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 4/27/2012 Dissertation Director: Perry Gilmore
3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: Alexandra Kuchuk
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Perry Gilmore, for her guidance, support, inspiration and encouragement. From the time I was a student in her Discourse Analysis class to this point she has been most generous in sharing her knowledge and expertise. I am very grateful that she has always found time in her busy schedule to discuss my work, answer my questions, give advice, and encourage me to move forward. I would also like to sincerely thank my other dissertation committee members, Dr. Linda Waugh and Dr. Jonathon Reinhardt, for their invaluable advice and help with my dissertation. And I would also like to deeply thank Dr. Waugh for being my mentor, supportive and caring, during all the years that I have spent in the SLAT Program at the U of A. To all of my dissertation committee members, it has been an honor and a privilege to work with you and learn from you, and I thank you greatly for helping me grow as a scholar. I would also like to deeply thank Dr. Ardith Meier, who was my mentor in the MA Program at the University of Northern Iowa and to whom I owe a great debt for introducing me to the fascinating fields of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, for setting the highest standards of academic achievement, and for the encouragement to pursue my doctoral studies. My sincere thanks go to all the faculty of the SLAT Program and fellow SLAT students from whom I have learned so much. I would also like to cordially thank the administrative staff of the SLAT Program, especially Shaun O’Connor and Kelley Merriam-Castro, for taking care of all administrative matters so that SLAT students, including myself, could concentrate on their academic pursuits. I also want to thank the faculty and staff of the English Department and the Writing Program at the U of A, where I have been teaching for five years, and especially Dr. Bill Endres and Dr. D.R. Ransdell, my Teaching Advisors, who have helped me grow as a teacher. Separate thanks are due to Dr. Anne-Marie Hall, the Director of the Writing Program, and Dr. D.R. Ransdell for their help with this study. I am also very grateful to all the teachers of ESL Composition classes who have helped me with the recruitment of participants for this study. Very special thanks go to all of the students who participated in this study. I am deeply grateful for their willingness to share their thoughts and experiences. I would also like to heartily thank my friends, in the US, Russia, and other places where life has taken them, for their support and encouragement. Special thanks go to my friends Jim and Connie Schuerman, who have become like a second family to me. The biggest thank you goes to Eric Nielsen for his support, help with this work, and belief that I can accomplish this goal even when I myself had doubts about it. And above all I would like to thank my family, especially my mother, Vera Kuchuk, my father, Gennady Kuchuk, and my brother, Andrey Kuchuk, who have always been my biggest fans and my major source of strength. I would never have reached this point if I did not feel that you are always there by my side, even when physically you might be thousands of miles away. Your unwavering support and belief in me are what helped me come this far, and for that I am grateful beyond words.
5
DEDICATION
To my parents, Vera and Gennady Kuchuk,
and my brother, Andrey Kuchuk.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................9
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................12
Rationale for the Present Study......................................................................................12
Research Questions ........................................................................................................14
Overview ........................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................20
English as an International Language/a Lingua Franca .................................................20
Communicative Competence in EIL ..............................................................................23
Pragmatic Competence in EIL .......................................................................................31
The Role of L1 and Pragmatic Failure in EIL ...........................................................35
Empirical Research on Pragmatic Competence of EIL Speakers ..............................38
Features of Pragmatic Competence in EIL ................................................................47
Politeness and Face in EIL Communication ..................................................................48
Traditional Theories vs. Postmodern Approaches to Politeness ................................48
Politeness and Face(work) .........................................................................................53
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................58
Introduction ...................................................................................................................58
Data Collection .............................................................................................................61
Background Questionnaire.........................................................................................61
Critical Incidents ........................................................................................................62
Benefits and Limitations of Critical Incidents as a Type of
Written Production Questionnaire .............................................................................63
Semi-structured Informal Interviews .........................................................................68
Data Collection Procedure .............................................................................................71
Research Site ..................................................................................................................75
Participants .....................................................................................................................77
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................78
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
CHAPTER 4: PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND POLITENESS IN
THE “THIRD PLACE” .....................................................................................................81
The Notion of the “Third Place” ....................................................................................81
The “Third Place” and Pragmatic Competence in EIL ..................................................84
Constructing the “Third Place” of Pragmatic Competence
and Politeness in EIL .....................................................................................................87
Ahmed .......................................................................................................................87
Patricia ....................................................................................................................100
Yanbo .......................................................................................................................104
Mei ..........................................................................................................................108
Maria ........................................................................................................................112
Summary ......................................................................................................................118
CHAPTER 5: FACEWORK AND POLITENESS IN EIL INTERACTIONS ...............121
Introduction ..................................................................................................................121
Peer Review in Teaching ESL Writing ........................................................................122
Peer Review as a Site of Facework ..............................................................................124
Opting Out ...................................................................................................................128
Opting Out as Facework ..............................................................................................131
Conflicting Frames of Interpretation ...........................................................................136
Other Facework Strategies ...........................................................................................144
Avoidance of Complaining ......................................................................................144
Request Strategies ....................................................................................................150
“Giving Face” ......................................................................................................151
Face Concerns and Interactional Goals................................................................154
Preemptively Addressing Face Concerns ............................................................159
Summary ......................................................................................................................162
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................166
Summary of the Study .................................................................................................166
Summary of the Findings .............................................................................................168
Pedagogical Implications .............................................................................................175
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................177
Limitations of the Present Study and Directions for Future Research.........................181
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................186
APPENDIX B: CRITICAL INCIDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................187
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................................................................190
APPENDIX D: RECRUITMENT SPEECH ...................................................................192
APPENDIX E: TRANSCRIPTION NOTATIONS .........................................................193
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................194
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 M. Byram’s Factors in Intercultural Communication ......................................27
Figure 2.2 L. Bachman’s Components of Language Competence ....................................31
10
ABSTRACT
Taking a social constructionist perspective, this dissertation explores politeness-
as-practice (Eelen, 2001) of L2 English speakers in intercultural communication
encounters. The study is situated within the English as an International Language (EIL)
paradigm which suggests that pragmatic norms in interaction between EIL speakers are
dynamic and flexible, and therefore, instead of measuring EIL speakers’ success in
interaction against a “native-speaker” norm, the research should focus on how speakers
themselves define and (co-)construct pragmatic norms and successful interaction (e.g.,
House, 2003a; McKay, 2009). The view of politeness taken in this study is based on
postmodern approaches to politeness, which submit that politeness is dynamic and that
the politeness meanings of particular strategies, utterances, and linguistic forms are
assigned to them by participants within an interaction.
Data were collected through background questionnaires, written questionnaires in
the form of critical incidents, and semi-structured informal interviews. The data were
analyzed qualitatively, relying primarily on discourse analysis complemented by the
theories of “third place”, facework, and politeness.
The results of this study offer insights into the nature of pragmatic competence in
EIL, the processes of the development of such competence, and challenges that L2
English speakers face in this process. Specifically, this study investigates how L2
speakers of English conceptualize politeness, the hybrid and dynamic nature of their
pragmatic competence in general and politeness-in-practice in particular, and the
interrelationship between politeness and other factors that determine the speakers’
11
pragmatic choices in situations that have potential for misunderstanding, conflict, and
face loss.
This dissertation contributes to the theory and research in the fields of Second
Language Acquisition (SLA), EIL, Intercultural Communication, Interlanguage
Pragmatics and Politeness by providing insights into the pragmatic competence and
politeness of L2 English speakers. This work deepens the body of scholarship in these
fields in that it provides the speakers’ own perspectives on the processes of their
pragmatic competence development and their concepts of politeness. It is also hoped that
insights provided by this study will benefit English language teachers who aim to develop
intercultural communicative competence in their classrooms.
12
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Rationale for the Present Study
Recently, there has been an increase in research on communication between the
speakers of English as a second/foreign/additional language, commonly referred to as L2
speakers of English. However, the majority of studies that claim to be “intercultural” are
still studies in which aspects of L2 English speakers’ performance and/or competence are
compared, in one way or another, to those of “native English speakers.” This emphasis
reflects an ideology that positions the L2 speakers of English as inferior to “native
speakers,” which reinforces the power inequality between these groups, continues to
serve gate-keeping purposes, and leads some scholars to label English as a “killer
language”, referring to the effect English has on other community languages.
According to Graddol (1997), English was the dominant language in the world in
the twentieth century, and Graddol predicts that while it will be sharing this position with
other languages by the middle of the twenty first century, it will still remain one of the
most widely used languages (as cited in Maurais, 2003, p. 17). In terms of English
language users, it has been claimed that presently over 80% of interactions in English are
between L2 speakers (McKay, 2009, p. 233). An unprecedented spread of English across
countries and domains of use demands the recognition of the L2 English speakers’
contribution to the current shape of English as a language of global uses. Some scholars
have argued that “‘non-native’ speakers need to be regarded as language users in their
own right (Cook 1999)” (Seidlhofer, 2002, p. 270-271). It has been suggested that this
perspective questions the deference given to “native speaker” norms across all contexts of
13
language use, emphasizes the legitimacy of variation in different communities, and
highlights the need to pursue the attitudinal and linguistic implications of the global
spread of English (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 214).
Given the fact that the majority of communication currently conducted in English
around the world involves non-native speakers, and in many instances none of the
interlocutors is a native-speaker of English (e.g., House, 2003a), characteristics of such
evolving communication contexts must inform and add to traditional research foci. As
claimed by some scholars, with English spreading across speech communities, the native
speaker model of English cannot and should not be the only valid and acceptable model
for English language acquisition (e.g., Kachru, 1986; Seidlhofer, 2004; Widdowson,
1994). Emerging new functions and varieties of English call for a new model that would
allow learners to communicate successfully not only with L1 speakers of English, but
with other L2 speakers of English as well.
While research in cross-cultural pragmatics and intercultural pragmatics involving
English language speakers has been abundant, there have been very few studies that look
at the pragmatic behavior of L2 speakers of English in communication with each other,
even though the findings of these studies provide a very different perspective on the
nature of pragmatic competence that demands further exploration (e.g., House, 2003a;
Knapp, 2002; Meeuwis, 1994; Meierkord, 2002). The purpose of the present study is to
deepen our understanding of this phenomenon.
The present work is situated within the paradigm of English as an International
Language (EIL) (cf. Sharifian, 2009) and contributes to the body of research on EIL and
14
the related fields of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL), Interlanguage Pragmatics, and Intercultural
Communication by investigating the pragmatic competence of L2 speakers of English.
This study aims to enrich our understanding of factors that affect the development of L2
English speakers’ pragmatic competence and the factors that affect their pragmatic
choices in intercultural encounters.
Specifically, this study will focus on the place of politeness among the factors that
affect L2 English speakers’ pragmatic choices and the relation of politeness to other
facework strategies. Thus, this dissertation also contributes to the body of research on
Politeness and Face. The approach taken in this study draws on the so-called postmodern
approaches to face and politeness (e.g., Arundale, 2006, 2009; Eelen, 2001; Spencer-
Oatey, 2005, 2009; Watts, 2003). By adopting this approach, the present work attempts to
expand the scope of empirical work on politeness beyond the traditional frameworks,
most notable of which is the Politeness Theory of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), that
have been dominating the research on politeness.
Research Questions
Within the EIL paradigm, pragmatic competence in English has been treated as a
highly dynamic, flexible ability to negotiate meaning and norms of interaction within a
given context (e.g., House, 2003a; McKay, 2009). Some studies of interactions between
L2 speakers of English observed that the communicative behavior of these speakers
exhibits a variety of characteristics, some of which can be attributed to the respective first
15
languages/cultures of the speakers while others cannot be attributed to either their first
languages/cultures or the target language/culture (e.g., Meierkord, 2002). Such findings
have led some researchers to suggest that the nature of L2 English speakers’ pragmatic
competence is hybrid. Moreover, some have argued that such hybrid pragmatic
competence should be the very target of EIL acquisition (e.g., House, 2003a).
Since pragmatic competence is a very broad notion, the present study focuses on
one aspect of the pragmatic competence of L2 English speakers: linguistic politeness.
Drawing on the postmodern perspective on linguistic politeness, this study adopts the
notion of politeness-as-practice, originally developed by Eelen (2001) and based on the
distinction between “first-order (im)politeness” and “second-order (im)politeness”,
originally introduced by Watts, Ide and Ehlich (1992). First-order (im)politeness, or
(im)politeness1, refers to the “folk interpretation of (im)politeness” and second-order
(im)politeness, or (im)politeness2, refers to “a concept in a sociolinguistic theory of
(im)politeness” (Watts, 2003, p. 4).
Drawing on this distinction, Eelen (2001) suggested the conceptualization of first-
order politeness as “politeness-as-practice”, which is divided into three kinds: expressive,
which is the “politeness encoded in speech, to instances where the speaker aims at
‘polite’ behaviour”; classificatory, which is “politeness used as a categorizational tool
[that] covers hearers’ judgments (in actual interaction) of other people’s interactional
behaviour as ‘polite’ or ‘impolite’”; and metapragmatic, which is “instances of talk about
politeness as a concept, about what people perceive politeness to be all about” (p. 35).
16
Postmodern approaches to politeness emphasize that politeness should be studied
“bottom-up” and that judgments of politeness meanings of linguistic forms and strategies
should also come from participants in any given interaction. For example, Watts (2003)
argues that “a theory of [second-order] politeness should concern itself with the
discursive struggle over [first-order] politeness, i.e. over the ways in which (im)polite
behavior is evaluated and commented on by lay members” (p. 9).
Based on the approaches to pragmatic competence in EIL and politeness outlined
above, the present study addresses the following set of research questions:
• What is the nature of L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness? Specifically,
how are these notions affected by the hybrid nature of L2 English speakers’
pragmatic competence?
• What is the place of politeness among other factors (e.g., interactional goals) that
affect L2 English speakers’ communicative behavior in interaction with other L2
English speakers? What is the place of politeness among other types of facework?
• How do L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness and their interaction with
other factors affect their performance in real-life situations that have potential for
misunderstanding and conflict?
Overview
Chapter 2 of this dissertation presents a review of the literature to situate the
present study in the body of scholarship to date. The main purpose of this chapter is to
introduce the theoretical frameworks for the study and to review the empirical work
17
conducted within these frameworks pertinent to the present study. Specifically, this
chapter will provide an overview of EIL as a paradigm for research, theory, and practice,
and will identify how this paradigm transforms the treatment of such notions as
communicative competence in general and pragmatic competence in particular. This
chapter will also briefly introduce the field of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), which is
closely related, and at times even conflated, with EIL. Then, this chapter will present an
overview of postmodern approaches to politeness and traditional (e.g., Goffman, 1967)
and postmodern (e.g., Arundale, 1999, 2006, 2009; Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2009)
treatments of the relationship between politeness and face(work).
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study. First, it will explain the
rationale behind the choice of data collection instruments used in this study: background
questionnaires, written production questionnaires based on critical incidents, and semi-
structured informal interviews. Benefits and limitations of these data collection
techniques will also be discussed. Then, this chapter will describe the research site,
participants and procedure, and will outline the methods of data analysis.
Chapters 4 and 5 present the data analysis and discussion. Chapter 4, titled
“Pragmatic Competence and Politeness in the ‘Third Place’”, addresses the first research
question and focuses on the hybrid nature of pragmatic competence of the study
participants and the hybrid nature of their politeness-as-practice. The data in this chapter
are analyzed using discourse analysis through the framework of “third place”, an
approach to language acquisition that sees language learning as the process of exploration
rather than assimilation (e.g., Lo Bianco et al., 1999). The concept of the “third place” in
18
application to SLA refers to the place “between the native linguaculture and the target
linguaculture” which is hybrid, “dynamic and is being renegotiated with every
intercultural interaction and with every opportunity for new learning” (Lo Bianco et al.,
1999, p. 181). The chapter will begin with an introduction of the notion of the “third
place” and its application to the development of pragmatic competence in EIL. Then, the
chapter will present data analysis that examines the data from five participants in order to
provide a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of the processes of construction of these
hybrids and the challenges that L2 English speakers face during this process. The chapter
will conclude with a summary of the analysis.
Chapter 5, titled “Facework and Politeness in EIL Interactions”, addresses the
second and the third research questions. The data in this chapter are analyzed using
discourse analysis through the framework of facework theories and Speech Act Theory.
Speech Act Theory is used to identify the specific strategies employed by the participants
rather than to categorize their politeness meanings. In addition, the analysis in this
chapter draws on Agar’s (1994) notions of “rich point” and “intercultural frame”. In order
to provide a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of the range of facework strategies and the
interplay of the speakers’ face concerns with other factors in EIL interactions, the data
analyzed in this chapter are limited to the responses to one particular critical incident,
namely, CI 1 “Peer Review” (see Appendix B). The chapter will begin with explaining
the rationale for the choice of data, followed by the overview of peer review as a
pedagogical activity, a context of EIL interaction, and a site of facework. Next, the
chapter will present the analysis of the data from the participants’ written responses to CI
19
1 “Peer Review” and interview excerpts pertaining to the discussion of their written
responses, organized according to the strategies they chose to deal with the situation. The
chapter will conclude with a summary of the analysis.
Chapter 6 concludes this dissertation with a brief overview of the study and its
findings. It will also discuss the pedagogical implications of this work, its significance
and limitations, and directions for future research.
20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
English as an International Language/a Lingua Franca
English as an International Language (EIL) is a paradigm for research, theory, and
practice that seeks to provide a more adequate framework for the fields of SLA and
TESOL in light of the global spread of English (cf. Sharifian, 2009). One of the crucial
features that differentiate EIL from traditional English as a Second/Foreign Language
(ESL/EFL) approaches is that it is based on the recognition of World Englishes as
legitimate varieties of English regardless of which “circle” (cf. Kachru, 1986) they come
from1. The major consequence of this recognition is the reconsideration of the target or
model for learners of English. In traditional ESL/EFL approaches, the target has been the
so-called “native speaker” of English. Within EIL, L1 speakers of English are being
treated just the same as speakers of any other World English and have no more symbolic
power than speakers of any other World English. The main premise of EIL is that English
can be used and taught across the globe as a means of intercultural communication
without promoting the power inequality and devaluing or threatening other languages
spoken in a community, thus rejecting the idea that the global spread of English is a
threat to multilingualism (cf. House, 2003b).
One of the areas most closely associated with EIL is the research on English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF). Because a noticeable terminological confusion exists in the field,
where some scholars use the terms EIL and ELF interchangeably while others disagree
on the aspects in which EIL and ELF differ, it appears necessary to address the difference
1 Also see Canagarajah (2006) for a discussion of how recently the distinction between Kachru’s three concentric circles of World Englishes has become less clear (as cited in Sharifian, 2009, p. 3).
21
between the terms EIL and ELF in more detail to clarify the usage of the term EIL in this
work. While this study adopts the perspective that identifies some significant
epistemological differences between ELF and EIL, the research done within the ELF
framework is seen as having a potential to inform EIL theory and practice.
One major difference is that ELF scholars approach ELF as a new variety of
English. They attempt to understand “the nature of the language itself as an international
means of communication, and in what respects English as a lingua franca (ELF) differs
from ‘English as a native language’ (ENL)” (Seidlhofer, 2002, p. 271). House (2009) also
refers to ELF as “a special form of language use operating under different conditions than
both native/native and native/non-native interactions” (p. 141). Consequently, ELF
scholars direct research efforts primarily at describing and codifying ELF variety,
searching for a “common core”, including such aspects as phonology, grammar, and
pragmatics (House, 2009, p. 142; Seidlhofer, 2002, p. 271-272). From the perspective of
pedagogy then, it has been suggested that the ELF model “should aim at a formulation of
minimal requirements for intelligibility and maximal flexibility for actual use”
(Seidlhofer, 2002, p. 274). EIL, on the other hand, does not refer to any particular
(natural or constructed) variety of English. According to Smith (1983), “English as an
International Language refers to functions of English, not to any given form of the
language. It is the use of English by people of different nations and different cultures in
order to communicate with one another” (p. vi, italics in the original). Sharifian (2009)
also submits that EIL “rejects the idea of any particular variety being selected as a lingua
franca for international communication” and “emphasizes that English, with its many
22
varieties, is a language of international, and therefore intercultural communication” (p. 2,
italics in the original). Therefore, EIL seeks insights “not only into the nature of World
Englishes but also about communication across Englishes, an issue which lies at the heart
of EIL” (Sharifian, 2009, p. 4, italics in the original). In other words, ELF scholars are
primarily interested in identifying the “common core” across L2 speakers’ Englishes that
would be the model of ELF, while EIL scholars recognize that L2 speakers of English
might use it for a wide variety of functions across a wide variety of contexts, including
communicating with L1 speakers; therefore, they focus on the interaction among speakers
of World Englishes.
Another major difference is that ELF scholars tend to limit their scope to
exclusively L2/L2 interactions. According to Jenkins, “in its purest form, ELF is defined
as a contact language used only among non-mother tongue speakers” (cited in Roberts &
Canagarajah, 2009, p. 210; cf. House, 2002, p. 246). Recently, however, some calls for
expanding such a narrow scope of ELF are being heard. Roberts and Canagarajah (2009),
for example, call for inclusion of native speakers of English in ELF research to see how
the presence of a native speaker affects the dynamics of ELF interactions. They label it
ELF2 (p. 210), although since it refers to the “contact language [used] by all speakers,
irrespective of their English language acquisition history” (ibid.), ELF2 coincides with
the definition of EIL as it is used in this study (cf. Sharifian, 2009; Smith, 1983). That is,
EIL includes speakers of all varieties of English in its scope. It might seem awkward to
refer to the speakers of American, British or Australian English as EIL speakers, but it is
important to remember that EIL is not a variety of English, it is a function of English.
23
From this perspective, labeling an interaction between, for example, an American, an
Indian, and a Russian as an “EIL interaction” appears adequate.
Particularly important for EIL is the question of how to facilitate communication
in EIL. In their attempt to answer this question, Roberts and Canagarajah (2009) have
arrived at what they call “a radical conclusion”, namely, that “the center [of
communication in EIL] will not be … lexicogrammar at all. Rather it will be the
negotiation strategies which speakers of all communities bring to the interaction” (p. 225).
It is in this area that ELF research can provide especially valuable insights into EIL
theory and practice. Many EIL as well as ELF researchers agree with the assumptions
that negotiation of meaning lies in the core of intercultural communication and that
successful communication depends on speakers’ negotiation skills more than on any
other aspect of their competence (e.g., House, 2002; McKay, 2009). Thus, to understand
how communication in EIL proceeds and how it can be facilitated, it is necessary to
consider what constitutes competence in EIL.
Communicative Competence in EIL
According to Knapp (1987), “competence in EIL is primarily competence to
communicate interculturally by means of E[nglish]. Teaching EIL or ‘E[nglish] for
intercultural communication’ presupposes a specification of both the intercultural and the
E[nglish] domain of this competence as educational objectives” (p. 1026). Therefore, this
section will look at communicative competence in EIL in light of the theories of
intercultural communicative competence (ICC).
24
According to Chen and Starosta (2008), the definition of ICC has been built on a
more general definition of communicative competence as an ability to interact effectively
and appropriately with others but with a larger emphasis on contextual factors, as
“effective and appropriate interaction between people who identify with particular
physical and symbolic environments” (p. 219). From the effectiveness perspective,
communicative competence is “the ability of an interactant to choose among available
communicative behaviors in order that he[she] may successfully accomplish his[her] own
interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his[her]
fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation” (Wiemann, 1977, p. 198, as
cited in Chen & Starosta, 2008, p. 218). As for appropriateness, its main criteria,
according to Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), are that “the interactants perceive that they
understand the content of the encounter and have not had their norms and rules violated
too extensively” (as cited in Chen & Starosta, 2008, p. 218).
One very important ability that Chen and Starosta (2008) identify from the past
research and theories of ICC is that in order to achieve appropriateness in intercultural
communication encounters interactants must possess “the ability to recognize how
context constrains communication, so that one acts and speaks appropriately by
combining capabilities and social knowledge to recognize that different situations give
rise to different sets of rules” (p. 218). On this basis, Chen and Starosta formulate their
definition of ICC as “the ability to negotiate cultural meanings and to execute
appropriately effective communication behaviors that recognize the interactants’ multiple
identities in a specific environment” (ibid.). Thus, their definition “emphasizes that
25
competent persons must know not only how to interact effectively and appropriately with
people and environment, but also how to fulfill their own communication goals by
respecting and affirming the multilevel cultural identities of those with whom they
interact” (ibid).
Based on this and similar definitions of ICC, several models of ICC have been
proposed to identify specific constituents of ICC. There are a number of ICC frameworks,
but most of them identify three major dimensions2: behavioral, cognitive, and attitudinal
(e.g., Byram, 1997; Chen & Starosta, 2008; Matveev, 2004; Ruben, 1989). While the
terminology might differ and there might be some inconsistencies and disagreements on
what each dimension involves, the set itself remains quite consistent across frameworks.
Ruben (1989) was one of the first to identify knowledge, behavior, and attitudes
dimensions of ICC and to call for future research to investigate the role of each of these
dimensions and their interrelationships (p. 234). Empirical research in the years following
Ruben’s call has led to significant developments of theoretical models by providing a
more in-depth understanding of what each component encompasses. The second question
posed by Ruben (1989), how the components are related, has also been addressed in
research and has led the creators of ICC models to claim that all components are equally
important (e.g., Byram, 1997; Sercu, 2004; Spitzberg, 2000; Wiseman, 2002), and, as
Chen and Starosta (2008) put it, theoretical models now conceptualize ICC as “a
2While the word “dimensions” is used here, ICC scholars have used other words such as “aspects” (e.g., Sercu, 2004), “factors” (e.g., Byram, 1997), “categories” (Bradford et al., 2000), and “perspectives” (e.g., Chen & Starosta, 2008) to refer to the constituents of ICC.
26
transformational process of symmetrical interdependence [between the three major
components]” (p. 221).
One comprehensive model has been suggested by Chen and Starosta (2008), who
have provided a more in-depth description of the components of their model:
affective/intercultural sensitivity, cognitive/intercultural awareness, and
behavioral/intercultural adroitness. The affective perspective is based on four personal
attributes: self-concept, open-mindedness, nonjudgmental attitudes, and social relaxation,
which lead to one’s ability “to be sensitive enough to acknowledge and respect cultural
differences” (p. 223). The cognitive perspective encompasses self-awareness and cultural
awareness (referring to one’s own culture and others’ cultures), which help one to adapt
to new situations, “develop an awareness of cultural dynamics and discern multiple
identities in order to maintain a state of multicultural coexistence” (p. 223). Finally, the
behavioral perspective corresponds to communication skills, includes verbal as well as
non-verbal behaviors, and also message skills, appropriate self-disclosure, behavioral
flexibility, interaction management, and social skills.
Another model, suggested by Byram (1997), is geared specifically to
foreign/second language acquisition and presents a good framework for the study of EIL.
Byram proposed a model that divides intercultural competence into five savoirs:
knowledge (savoirs) and education (savoir s’engager), skills (savoir comprendre and
savoir apprendre/faire), and attitudes (savoir être) (p. 34). The following figure
represents these factors and the relationships among them:
27
Skills interpret and relate
(savoir comprendre)
Knowledge of self and other;
of interaction: individual and societal
(savoirs)
Education political education
critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager)
Attitudes relativising self valuing other (savoir être)
Skills discover and/or interact (savoir apprendre/faire)
Figure 2.1 Factors in intercultural communication (from Byram, 1997, p. 34).
These savoirs represent the same three areas of knowledge, behavior/skills, and
attitudes, but Byram purposefully presents them in their relation to the competencies that
language teachers can attempt to develop in their learners (p. 31) and provides a very
detailed description of each of the factors formulated as “objectives” (pp. 57-64). And
since Byram designs his model specifically for foreign/second language teaching and
learning, he ties his intercultural competence component to the already existing models of
communicative competence established in the field of second language acquisition (SLA).
Specifically, Byram uses van Ek’s (1986) model, which has six components or
competencies: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic, socio-cultural, and social
(cited in Byram, 1997, p. 10). There is, however, one major difference between van Ek’s
and Byram’s approaches in that van Ek envisions a native speaker as a model in his
definition of communicative competence, while Byram rejects the notion of the native
speaker and proposes the intercultural speaker as a model for language learners (p. 70). It
is not the imitation of the native speakers in regard to the mastery of the standard
language and the culture of the country where the language is spoken that makes a
language learner a competent intercultural speaker, but his or her skills, knowledge, and
28
attitudes, as outlined in Byram’s model. The adoption of a new model speaker causes
Byram to refine the strategic, socio-cultural, and social competencies and redefine
linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse competencies to refer to the following:
• linguistic competence: the ability to apply knowledge of the rules of a
standard version of the language to produce and interpret spoken and
written language;
• sociolinguistic competence: the ability to give to the language produced by
an interlocutor - whether native speaker or not - meanings which are taken
for granted by the interlocutor or which are negotiated and made explicit
with the interlocutor;
• discourse competence: the ability to use, discover and negotiate strategies
for the production and interpretation of monologue or dialogue texts which
follow the conventions of the culture of an interlocutor or are negotiated as
intercultural texts for particular purposes. (p. 48)
Byram’s model is a good fit for the study of communicative competence in EIL
not only because this model has been designed specifically with foreign/second language
learners in mind, but also because of its use of an intercultural speaker instead of a native
speaker as a model. Traditionally, ICC studies have looked at communication between
native speakers and learners of a certain language, and consequently, ICC theories have
also been largely concerned with the competence of a language learner required to
communicate appropriately and effectively in a target language, presuming that the native
speaker is the target model. Thus, it might, in fact, be more appropriate to refer to such
29
competence as “target-cultural” rather than truly intercultural. The rejection of a native
speaker as a model is a very important common feature between Byram’s account of ICC
and the EIL framework, as discussed in the previous section, in that these two approaches
offer a broader understanding of intercultural competence than in terms of a specific
target culture. In addition, Byram emphasizes that he is proposing an abstract model the
realizations of which have to take into account the specific context in which the language
is being acquired, which would account for a wide variety of particular contexts in which
English is being learned and used. For example, in the discussion of the threshold for ICC
he writes: “A threshold for ICC is therefore likely to differ from context to context in
terms of which components are emphasized and which objectives are prioritized or even
excluded from each component. The decision will be partly in terms of foreseeable needs
and opportunities for intercultural communication and partly in terms of the cognitive and
affective development of the learners” (p. 78). These two features of Byram’s model
make it exceptionally well-fit for the EIL context.
In fact, Byram explicitly addresses the application of his model to the teaching of
lingua franca languages, specifically ELF, although he does so in little detail, addressing
this complex issue on just a few pages in the concluding chapter of his book. The most
important issue to consider is the content of the knowledge component of ICC in EIL
context. Byram has defined his knowledge component or savoirs as “[the knowledge] of
social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s
country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (p. 58). Sercu
(2004), based on Byram’s model, adds that “savoirs includes both culture-specific (of
30
own and foreign culture) and culture-general knowledge as well as the knowledge
regarding the many ways in which culture affects language and communication” (p. 77).
However, an EIL speaker can find herself or himself communicating with a person from
a country she or he is unfamiliar with, and no language teacher can anticipate such an
encounter and equip the student with the necessary culture-specific knowledge in
preparation for it. Thus, the notion of “culture-specific” knowledge presents a great
challenge for EIL education.
Byram acknowledges that in the case of ELF we can expect minimal common
ground or none at all when it comes to the knowledge of each other’s cultural beliefs,
meanings, and behaviors (p. 112). Meier (2003) also suggests that in an international
context there exists a “potentially greater variety of unshared and unknown expectations
for language behavior” (2003, p. 196). In this light, one solution might be to reconsider
the knowledge component of ICC. For example, Bredella (2003) suggests a new
conceptualization for the notion of “understanding” in his flexible model of intercultural
understanding. This model would allow the speaker to (a) make use of background
knowledge, memories of experiences, and contexts, (b) mediate between relativism and
ethnocentrism to develop a third position that transcends the values of one’s own and
other culture(s), and (c) be aware how interaction with another culture affects identity to
help individuals make their own decisions (p. 46-47). Although this reconceptualization
was not designed specifically for EIL, it appears to offer a viable alternative in this
context. Bredella’s reconceptualization of “understanding” is also closely tied to the
concept of the “third place”, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
31
Pragmatic Competence in EIL
This section will provide an overview of the traditional approaches to (the
development of) pragmatic competence in English and analyze how the
reconceptualization of communicative competence in EIL affects (the development of)
pragmatic competence in EIL.
Pragmatic competence, one of the major components of communicative
competence, has received a substantial amount of attention in SLA scholarship. In some
frameworks of communicative competence, other terms, such as “sociolinguistic
competence”, are being used in place of “pragmatic competence” (e.g., see Byram’s
framework discussed above), but “pragmatic competence” is used more widely. For
example, in Bachman’s (1990) framework of communicative competence, one of the
major components is “language competence”, which includes the following:
Language Competence Organizational Competence Pragmatic Competence
Grammatical Competence
Textual Competence
Illocutionary Competence
Sociolinguistic Competence
Vocabulary; Morphology; Syntax; Phonology/Graphology
Cohesion; Rhetorical Organization
Ideational Function; Manipulative Functions; Heuristic Function; Imaginative Function
Sensitivity to (differences in) dialect or variety; Sensitivity to (differences in) register; Sensitivity to naturalness; Ability to interpret cultural references and figures of speech
Figure 2.2 Components of language competence (adapted from Bachman, 1990, p. 87).
32
Thus, pragmatic competence in Bachman’s (1990) framework includes illocutionary
competence, which he defines as the “knowledge of the pragmatic conventions for
performing acceptable language functions” (p. 90), and sociolinguistic competence,
which he defines as the “knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions for performing
language functions appropriately in a given context” (ibid.).
Among the areas that have devoted attention to pragmatic competence and that
are the most relevant to EIL pragmatics are cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage
pragmatics (McKay, 2002, p. 73), which focus on cultural differences in pragmatic
competence/behavior and the pragmatic competence/behavior of second language
learners respectively. There are, however, some fundamental differences between
traditional interlanguage pragmatics and pragmatics of EIL, arising from epistemological
differences between the EIL paradigm and traditional approaches to SLA. The major
difference, as discussed in the section on EIL, is that interlanguage pragmatics scholars
have assumed that the goal of English language learners is/should be to acquire native
speaker-like pragmatic competence while EIL scholars reject the native speaker model,
including in the area of pragmatics. However, even within interlanguage pragmatics,
some scholars have expressed doubts that the native speaker model is a feasible and
desirable model for English language learners. For example, according to Kasper (1997,
as cited in McKay, 2002, p. 74-75), there are several reasons why a native speaker model
cannot serve as a viable model for the acquisition of pragmatics:
• “native speaker of English” is not a homogeneous group, and conversational
styles can differ greatly among the speakers sharing a common culture;
33
• adult learners of English might not be able to develop native-like pragmatic
competence because pragmatic competence in L2 appears to be increasingly
difficult to acquire with age;
• in some contexts English language learners might lack the input and opportunities
necessary for gaining a native-like degree of pragmatic competence;
• some sociopragmatic aspects of the target language and culture might conflict
with the learner’s values and beliefs;
• native-like pragmatic competence exhibited by English language learners might
be seen negatively by some native speakers of English.
While all these considerations apply to EIL as well, in EIL the “native speaker” model is
even less relevant, especially in those instances of EIL communication where neither
interlocutor is an L1 speaker of English. Even if we assume that there can be a single,
attainable “native speaker’s” pragmatic competence, the communicative styles of two L2
English speakers might have more shared features with each other than their styles have
in common with the “native speaker’s” style.
In addition, even if it were possible to identify a single set of pragmatic
competence elements, “native speaker” or otherwise, it would go against the foundations
of pragmatics as a field of study, from which pragmatic competence takes its name.
Pragmatics can be broadly defined as “the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or
dependent on, the use of language” (Huang, 2007, p. 2). But what is of great importance
is that such meaning is dynamic. As Thomas (1995) puts it, “pragmatics [is] meaning in
interaction. This reflects the view that meaning is not something which is inherent in the
34
words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer alone. Making
meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and
hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social, and linguistic) and the meaning
potential of an utterance” (p. 22, italics in the original). Thus, pragmatic competence is
not a static ability or a fixed set of skills that allows one to use language appropriately to
create and comprehend meaning in a given context, but a highly dynamic, flexible ability
to negotiate meaning and norms of interaction within a given context. As McKay (2009)
puts it in terms of pedagogical goals, “[t]here are then many reasons for rejecting a
native-speaker model in the teaching of EIL pragmatics, some of them related to the
nature of pragmatics itself and others to the fact that English as a global language is used
in a great variety of social contexts by many legitimate speakers of English” (p. 232).
These differences between traditional approaches to intercultural pragmatics and
EIL pragmatics mean that the results of the research conducted within this area, while
relevant to EIL, have to be approached with caution. Such research has produced
valuable insights into the nature of pragmatic competence, but they are not always
relevant to EIL contexts.
As for cross-cultural pragmatics research, the majority of it has focused on
differences and similarities in pragmatic norms and behaviors between different cultural
groups. Of particular interest to the field of ESL/EFL has been the research that identified
similarities and differences between the groups of “native speakers” of English and other
groups. However, this research did not investigate how these differences/similarities
affect the communicative outcomes or how they are negotiated in interaction; that is, the
35
focus of such research has not been on the actual process of communication. But this is
the focus of EIL (cf. Sharifian, 2009, p. 5). The majority of the research on intercultural
pragmatics, then, has focused on the so-called “gaps” in English language learners’
pragmatic competence as measured against the “native English speaker’s”. Not only has
this research failed to explain how these “gaps” affect communicative outcomes, but it
has also ignored the fact that a great extent of communicative encounters where English
is spoken does not include “native English speakers” (cf. McKay, 2009), and therefore its
results are of limited use.
The Role of L1 and Pragmatic Failure in EIL
As Canagarajah (2006) suggests, in EIL, speakers’ L1s and C13s are viewed as
resources rather than problems, which is a significant epistemological difference between
traditional interlanguage pragmatics and EIL pragmatics. House (2003a) also argues that
“[w]hile conventionally in Second Language Acquisition and Interlanguage research, the
possession of other languages - in particular learners’ L1 - was suppressed or ignored,
valuing hybrid procedures in the teaching and learning of ELF clearly aims at
recognizing the existence and potential usefulness of other languages” (p. 149).
Thomas (1983), in her discussion of “pragmatic failure”, has identified two types
of failure, one of them being “pragmalinguistic failure”, which “occurs when the
pragmatic force mapped by [the speaker] onto a given utterance is systematically
different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target
3 C1 stands for first/native culture.
36
language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2” (p.
99). Such “inappropriate” transfer has also been labeled “negative transfer” - “the
influence of L1 pragmatic competence on [interlanguage] pragmatic knowledge that
differs from the L2 target” (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993, p. 10). Transfer can also be
“positive”, which refers to the instances of “pragmatic behaviors … consistent across L1,
[interlanguage], and L2” (ibid.). However, whether positive or negative, both definitions
of transfer make it obvious that the appropriateness of language use is judged by the
“native speakers” of the L2. Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) have pointed out that
negative pragmatic transfer does not necessarily imply lack of competence in the
pragmatics of the target language/community, since it can be a matter of choice, for
example, used as a marker of cultural identity (p. 11). In addition, they point out that
negative pragmatic transfer does not necessarily result in pragmatic failure (p. 13).
Thomas also warns that “[t]o give the learner the knowledge to make an informed choice
and allowing her/him the freedom to flout pragmatic conventions, is to acknowledge
her/his individuality and freedom of choice and to respect her/his system of values and
beliefs” (p. 110). However, as a result of establishing the “native speaker” as the target,
subsequent empirical research has accepted as a corollary of the definitions of transfer
that the behavior that is seen as inappropriate by the “native speakers” constitutes a
failure, that is, a problem that has to be fixed if learners are to succeed.
For example, Kobayashi and Rinnert (2003), in their study of the performance of
requests by Japanese learners of English, have compared the performance of requests in
English by Japanese learners with the performance of requests in Japanese and
37
performance of requests in English by L1 speakers of English. They have observed some
evidence of pragmatic transfer, for example, in the use of grounders4: learners tended to
place grounders before the requests, just like Japanese speakers do when speaking in
Japanese and opposite to English speakers who tend to place grounders after requests
when speaking in English (pp. 169-170). In the discussion of the pedagogical
implications of their findings, then, Kobayashi and Rinnert concluded that their findings
“suggest that EFL learners may use certain L1 preferred strategies persistently in
performing the act of requesting, regardless of proficiency level” (p. 178), which leads
them to “suggest specific ways for EFL learners to overcome persistent L1 preferred
request strategies” (p. 179). Even though Kobayashi and Rinnert do not use the word
“failure”, it is obvious that the L1 transfer of which they speak is seen as a problem that
needs to be overcome. Their methodology and conclusions are typical of interlanguage
pragmatics research. In the EIL framework, at least two questions would need to be asked
about the L1 transfer that Kobayashi and Rinnert have observed before suggesting that
Japanese speakers of English should remove a certain request strategy from their
repertoire: How was this strategy of pre-request grounders evaluated by the hearers?
Even if it were evaluated negatively by the L1 speakers of English, was it evaluated as
such by other L2 speakers of English? Only when these questions are answered can a
conclusion about the appropriateness of given strategies in EIL interactions be made.
Thus, it is important to be careful when labeling certain behaviors as failures in
EIL. As House (2003a) claims, “[w]hile in the past studies in the field of pragmatics have
4 A grounder is an explanation/reason/justification for why a request is being made.
38
enjoyed examining “pragmatic failure”, it seems necessary in the particular case of
English as a lingua franca to examine the type of divergent, but still successful non-
native-non-native communication … and to engage in a radical re-thinking of the norm
against which ELF speakers pragmatic competence is to be matched” (p. 149). Roberts
and Canagarajah (2009) also suggest that the findings of the research done in the eighties
(e.g., research on pragmatic failure by Thomas, 1983, cited above) might not apply
anymore and that the patterns of (the use of) English might have changed with “increased
interactions in the context of globalization, diaspora communities and transnational
relations, added to the linguistic shift of power between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’
speakers” (pp 212-213).
In addition, Sridhar (1996) claims that in a cognitive view of language acquisition
“transfer is an efficient and economical psycholinguistic process in which the tried and
tested rules of the first language are used as hypotheses in mastering a second language.
Transfer reduces cognitive dissonance and contributes to processing economy” (p. 62). In
this light, in EIL, L1 transfer can be a highly useful strategy, even when it differs from
the preferred strategy of one’s interlocutor. For example, when the speaker does not
know what would constitute appropriate behavior in a given situation, he or she might
use a strategy transferred from his or her L1 as a starting point for the negotiation process.
Empirical Research on Pragmatic Competence of EIL Speakers
The research that adopts the ELF or EIL approach, although quite small in
number, offers evidence for the claim that pragmatic competence different from the
39
“native English speaker’s” does not necessarily negatively affect communicative
outcomes in ELF/EIL contexts. It appears useful, however, to look at interactions that do
not involve L1 speakers of English and those that do involve them separately, as the
research indicates that there might be noticeable difference in the dynamics of those
interactions and in what is judged as appropriate behavior within them.
As for L2-L2 interaction, which is typically referred to as NNS-NNS5 interaction,
the research suggests that the lack of native-like pragmatic competence of L2 speakers
does not necessarily affect communicative outcomes negatively. Studies such as the ones
by Firth (1996) and Meierkord (2000) seem to indicate that L2-L2 interactions are
characterized by high degrees of cooperativeness and that misunderstandings are rare in
those contexts.
On the other hand, after a closer look it appears that the smoothness of and
cooperation in L2-L2 interactions might be only superficial and might mask some deeper
communication problems. The lack of explicit attention to problems, such as repairs,
observed in the studies by Firth and Meierkord, for example, does not necessarily
indicate the absence of such problems or need for repairs, but rather that they go
unattended. In the study conducted by House (2002), she has also observed that the ELF
speakers exhibit highly cooperative, supportive and consensus-oriented behavior, for
example, through the use of co-construction of utterances and explicit expressions of
agreement (pp. 257-258). However, her data also indicate that participants often engage
in what she labels “parallel monologues”, in which each participant pursues his or her
5 NNS stands for “non-native speaker”.
40
own agenda rather than respond directly to other interlocutors’ contributions and attend to
their expectations and needs (e.g., in turn management); thus, the whole encounter leaves
very little room for the actual dialogue, and the questions or remarks that are seen as
potentially confrontational or challenging one’s viewpoint are ignored (p. 251-257).
Moreover, during the introspective interview, one of the participants claimed that she was
“struck” by the fact that her questions were not answered, while another participant said
that it was more important to reach a consensus than to give direct answers to the
questions. These results led House to conclude that the superficial consensus can indeed
hide misunderstanding and cultural differences (pp. 260-261). In addition, this study
underscores the need for research that includes introspective reports that allow the
elicitation of participants’ own interpretations and analysis of the interaction, including
their own and their interlocutors’ behavior, which can greatly enhance the researcher’s
analysis of other data sources.
In addition, it has been observed that when misunderstandings in L2-L2
communication occur, they tend to be resolved by topic change more often than by overt
negotiation through strategies such as rephrasing and repetition (cf. Seidlhofer, 2004, p.
218). Changing the topic might be perceived as a more cooperative, face-supportive
strategy than attracting overt attention to the problem that has occurred by some of the
interlocutors, but that does not mean that all interlocutors share this perception. Also, it
might not bode well for the achievement of some participants’ goals since the topic that
has been dropped for comity’s sake might have been of great importance to the
interlocutor who introduced it, as is illustrated by the reaction of the participant in
41
House’s (2002) study who was “struck” by the fact that her interlocutors ignored her
questions.
The seeming absence of communication problems might also be due to the fact
that L2 speakers avoid topics that they perceive as challenging and interactions that
require them to use English for a wider variety of functions. For example, Meierkord
(2002) observed that in L2-L2 interactions speakers use a limited number of speech act
realization strategies and exhibit a preference for the “here-and-now” topics while
avoiding others that might be less acceptable, such as politics or religion (pp. 126-127).
Interestingly, she also points out that these topics, while accounting for less than five
percent of all interaction, when initiated, result in exchanges that are above the average
length (p. 127). Without a more thorough investigation, however, it is not possible to
determine the reasons for either the narrow choice of topics or the longer duration of the
exchanges on the “less acceptable” or sensitive topics. The longer duration might result
from the deep interest of participants in such topics or from a larger number of mitigation
moves and increased indirectness during the discussion. The limited range of topics and
speech act strategies, similarly might be attributed to the (perceived) lack of pragmatic
competence to handle more complex/sensitive topics, or it might result from the
(perceived) gaps in other components of communicative competence, such as limited
vocabulary, of the speakers themselves or their interlocutors. Ironically, such perceived
gaps in L2 speakers’ competence, pragmatic or otherwise, might be a consequence of the
“native speaker” norm that makes L2 speakers feel inadequate and incapable of more
complex and diverse language use. More research in this field, and especially studies that
42
would include introspective reports, is highly needed to determine the reasons for the
behaviors observed by Meierkord (2002).
EIL research which includes interactions involving L1 speakers of English in its
scope further complicates the picture. Some research has pointed out that the presence of
a native English speaker in a group of L2 speakers might raise the bar for L2 speakers,
force them to converge with the “native speaker’s” norms, and limit the flexibility of
norms. For example, Knapp (2002) has demonstrated in his study that in interactions
dominated by L1 speakers of English or highly proficient L2 speakers of English, the less
proficient L2 speaker cannot participate equally. He cites examples of less proficient L2
speakers being neglected, pushed out of interactions, faced with overt lack of cooperation
and even rudeness, and one particularly striking example of one L2 speaker being
laughed at upon having produced as a slip of the tongue a non-existent English word
“examplation” (p. 235). It is important to note, though, that in Knapp’s data there are
examples of cooperation between L1 and L2 English speakers in EIL contexts as well,
but it is obvious that such cooperation is not a necessary attribute of EIL interaction. In
addition, his data illustrate that the distinction between L1 and L2 speakers of English is
an oversimplification. In his data, speakers whom Knapp labels “qns” or “quasi-native
speakers”, that is, advanced L2 speakers of English (pp. 224-225), exhibit behaviors
closer to L1 than to L2 speakers. Another very important finding from Knapp’s research
indicates that whether a speaker is “native-like” in regard to his or her communicative
competence in general and pragmatic competence specifically might not be the major
factor in deciding the success of the interaction. He provides several examples of
43
successful interactions, successful in both transactional and interpersonal senses, between
“nns” (non-native speakers) and “qns” despite noticeable differences in “nns’s” behavior
(pp. 228-230). One interaction between a German “nns” and a Taiwanese “qns”
participating in a simulation of a United Nations meeting is particularly illustrative, so it
is reproduced here:
1 nns: Sorry, I need another sign for my resolution? 2 qns: What’s it about? 3 nns: Prohibition of land mines 4 qns: That’s in a subcomission of disarmament, isn’t it? 5 nns: Yeah, disarmament. (2 secs.) 6 qns: Okay, I still have one vote, let me see ((qns reads resolution for 2:30 minutes)) 7 [qns: Hey, not ba:d. [I’ll sign] it ((5 secs., qns signs paper)) 8 [nns: [@@ ] [@@, @@] 9 nns: Yes, (3 secs.) @@@ 10 qns: Okay .. See you. 11 nns: Okay, yes. @@ 12 qns: @@ Bye then. @@ 13 ((qns leaves, waving)) Example 3, from Knapp (2002), p. 229.
“Nns” exhibits multiple examples of what would readily be labeled “gaps in
pragmatic competence” or “failures” in traditional interlanguage pragmatics research. For
example, she uses “sorry” instead of “excuse me” - a very common feature of L2
speakers’ communicative behavior caused by the fact that both expressions can have the
illocutionary force of apology, but it is “excuse me”, not “sorry”, that functions as an
attention-getter. In addition, the “nns” does not provide an explicit expression of gratitude
after the “qns” does her the favor of signing her resolution. However, all these “failures”
do not seem to affect either “qns’s” comprehension of “nns’s” intentions nor the
outcomes of the interaction. For example, even though it appears that the “qns” is waiting
44
for the actual request to read and sign “nns’s” resolution indicated by the pause in line 5,
her utterance in line 6 seems to indicate that she had no problem interpreting “nns’s”
utterance in line 1 as a request grounder, so even though the actual request was never
produced, the grounder and the information provided in it were sufficient. The success is
determined by the knowledge of the context that interlocutors share. They know that a
resolution has to be signed by at least twenty people to move forward and that each
person has three votes that they can give to any three resolutions that they approve
(Knapp, 2002, p. 222). Therefore, both interlocutors understand that what is not overtly
expressed by the “nns” is the question of whether the “qns” has any votes left and the
requests to read and sign, if approved, the “nns’s” resolution. Also, toward the end of this
interaction the “qns” adopts the “nns’s” communicative style and also employs laughter
to show good disposition and comity. Finally, as indicated by laughter and friendly
waving as they part, the pragmatic “failures” of the “nns” did not have a negative effect
on the outcomes, both transactional and interpersonal, of this interaction.
The differences observed by Knapp (2002) are quite striking. Obviously, multiple
factors affect one’s (pragmatic) behavior, and individual characteristics might have an
effect as strong as the level of one’s (pragmatic) competence or the norms of the speech
community to which one belongs. Other significant factors include the context of the
interaction and participants’ goals (pp. 238-239). In less formal contexts, such as small
talk, differences are more likely to be tolerated and more cooperative behavior is likely to
be exhibited. But in more formal or competitive situations, where the performance of the
participant is evaluated or a certain transactional, “selfish” goal is being pursued by each
45
interlocutor, there appears to be less room for the tolerance of differences and
cooperation.
In addition, the composition of a group can also affect the perception of norms in
a given interaction. Some studies indicate that if the interaction is dominated by L1
speakers of English, L2 speakers might be forced to conform to L1 speakers’
communicative style and pragmatic norms (e.g., Lesznyák, 2004, as cited in Roberts and
Canagarajah, 2009, p. 213). However, Lesznyák has looked only at the norms of topic
management, so we cannot be sure if her results can be extrapolated to other components
of pragmatic competence. Similar explanation can be applied to Knapp’s (2002) study:
within interactions dominated by “ns” (native speakers) and “qns”, the “nns” are at a
disadvantage, but it is not clear what causes it. “Qns” appear to exhibit the behavior that
is closer to “ns”, but while it might be suggested that “qns” are trying to align themselves
with “ns” so that they could claim an equal amount of symbolic power, such behavior
might be explained by the specific characteristics of the speech event in Knapp’s study.
For example, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in pursuance of one’s own specific
transactional goal, “qns” are sacrificing relational goals without consciously alienating
“nns” as less proficient. Perhaps the dynamics seen in Knapp’s study would have been
different if “nns” were in the majority even in the same formal or competitive situation,
although again we cannot say that with certainty, because the empirical studies in this
area are very scarce and their results are far from conclusive.
Some research indicates that if L1 speakers are in the minority, they are the ones
who have to, and do, adapt to L2 speakers’ communicative style. As Roberts and
46
Canagarajah’s (2009) study illustrates, when there is one L1 speaker among several L2
speakers (four in their study), the L1 norms are not imposed on other speakers, instead
they are negotiated in the process of interaction, just as they are observed to be in L2-L2
encounters, and the L1 speaker participates equally and exhibits the same behavioral
pattern as his L2 interlocutors. Unfortunately, there is little focus on the negotiation of
pragmatic norms in Roberts and Canagarajah’s (2009) study, but the L1 speaker’s
willingness and ability to negotiate the norms of topic management and his adaptation to
the communicative style of his L2 interlocutors hold promise for L2 speakers of English
which needs to be explored in future research in EIL.
On the other hand, the presence of an L1 speaker in some cases might be
beneficial. For example, in the study of the expressions of gratitude, Eisenstein and
Bodman (1993) have found that the lack of shared knowledge and understanding,
common in L2-L2 interactions, causes frequent communication breakdowns while in the
L1-L2 interactions such breakdowns are less frequent. They have found that “[t]he
nonnatives’ language flowed better when they had the support of a native speaker” (p.
73). According to them, thanking is a speech act that is “mutually developed” (p. 74);
thus, L1 speakers who have more confidence in their behavior in situations where
thanking is required are better able to supply in a fluent manner supporting moves that
prompt the L2 speakers to produce an appropriate return move/thanking strategy.
Clearly, the inclusion of the speakers of different varieties of English complicates
the empirical investigations of EIL interaction and communicative competence in EIL.
However, if the goal of EIL scholarship is a realistic account of how English is being
47
used in real-life communicative encounters, it seems to be inappropriate to artificially
simplify the picture and continue to approach the so-called NS6-NNS and NNS-NNS
communication as separate phenomena. In any study of L2 English speakers’
communicative competence in general and pragmatic competence in particular, it is
necessary to remember that in light of the global spread of English any speaker might
need to use English in a wide variety of contexts with speakers of different World
Englishes and of different levels of proficiency.
Features of Pragmatic Competence in EIL
Based on the findings of the studies discussed above, certain features of pragmatic
competence in EIL have been identified:
• pragmatic norms need to be open, flexible, and changeable to accommodate the
potential for negotiability of “linguistic-cultural” norms (House, 2003a, p. 149);
• the norm against which the pragmatic competence of an ELF/EIL speaker would
be assessed should be “the stable bilingual or multilingual speaker under
comparable social, cultural, historical conditions of language use with comparable
goals for interaction in different discourse domains” (House, 2003a, p. 149);
• in the development of pragmatic competence, particular emphasis should be given
to strategic competence because “[i]n an international context, strategic
competence perhaps bears a greater than normal burden due to the potentially
greater variety of unshared and unknown expectations for language behavior”
6 NS stands for “native speaker”.
48
(Meier, 2003, p. 196), and the ELF/EIL speaker should be trained to use a wide
variety of communicative strategies, including:
code-switching and borrowing from other languages he/she speaks (House,
2003a, p. 150),
repair strategies such as asking for clarification, repetition and rephrasing
(McKay, 2009, p. 239),
discourse strategies pertaining to topic and turn management, initiating
and closing conversations, pausing, etc. (House, 2003a, p. 151; McKay,
2009, p. 239),
negotiation strategies such as suggesting alternatives, arguing, and seeking
consensus (McKay, p. 239).
• increased metapragmatic awareness - insight into speakers’ own communicative
potential, strengths and deficiencies in realizing their communicative intentions
(House, 2003a, p. 153). Metapragmatic awareness should also include sensitivity
to one’s interlocutor’s communicative needs and a deeper understanding of the
interlocutor’s communicative intentions (p. 154) as well as the awareness of
cultural differences in communicative preferences (p. 155).
Politeness and Face in EIL Communication
Traditional Theories vs. Postmodern Approaches to Politeness
One of the phenomena that have received a substantial amount of attention in the
field of pragmatics in general and cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics in
49
particular is politeness. A number of theories attempting to describe and explain the
phenomenon of “linguistic politeness” have been proposed (cf. Eelen, 2001). In her
overview of politeness theories and research, Kasper (1990) has identified two major
trends: politeness as strategic conflict avoidance and politeness as social indexing. The
first trend is represented by such theories as Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) and
Arndt and Janney’s (1985), and the second one is represented by Ide’s (1989) and Gu’s
(1990) among others. However, the distinction between the two trends is not clear-cut.
For example, Kasper (1990) submits that Fraser and Nolen’s (1981) politeness theory
represents the “strategic” trend (p. 194), but Eelen (2001) in his review notes that in their
theory “politeness is not involved in any form of strategic interaction” (p. 14). This lack
of clear distinctions between different approaches illustrates the problem with
conceptualizations of politeness and the difficulty of cross-theory comparisons that have
consequently caused confusion among researchers.
There have been attempts to create finer distinctions in theoretical and research
trends. For example, Fraser (1990) has suggested the following four views on politeness:
social-norm (e.g., seeing politeness as “good manners”), conversational-maxim (e.g.,
Leech, 1983), face-saving (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), and conversational
contract (e.g., Fraser & Nolen, 1981). However, neither do finer distinctions between
approaches clarify what politeness means and how it should be studied nor does the new
research within these traditional trends (e.g., Holtgraves, 2005; Kallia, 2004) offer
significant amendments that would confront the major inadequacies. Ultimately, as Eelen
(2001) puts it in his critique of politeness theories to date, “it is not always easy to
50
determine the status of any new piece of research in terms of its precise place within the
field, or in terms of the relationship of its empirical data and claims vis-à-vis those of
other researchers” (p. i).
While each of the traditional approaches has made some contribution to the study
of politeness, Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1978, 1987) being arguably the
most influential, they have also been extensively criticized. These criticisms have
addressed, for example, their epistemological and methodological problems (e.g.,
Arundale, 2006; Eelen, 2001), their applicability to the study of politeness within
particular cultures (e.g., Lee-Wong, 1994; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003; Wierzbicka, 1985;
Yu, 2003), and their potential for cross-cultural and intercultural research (e.g., Meier,
2004). Thus, none of these approaches provides an adequate framework for the study of
politeness in EIL.
One major problem is that traditional approaches to politeness have
conceptualized politeness as static and have assumed that particular politeness meanings
are inherent in certain strategies and lexical items, which is incompatible with the claims
that pragmatic norms in EIL should be of a flexible, negotiable and open nature (House,
2002, 2003a; McKay, 2009). In addition, traditional approaches to the study of politeness
have largely relied on a top-down approach in which they attempted to establish theories
and explain speakers’ linguistic behavior largely neglecting speakers’ own
conceptualizations and evaluations of politeness and reasons behind the choices of
particular communicative strategies and linguistic forms.
51
The investigation of politeness as an aspect of pragmatic competence in EIL could
benefit from being placed in the framework of postmodern approaches to (linguistic)
politeness (e.g., Eelen, 2001; Haugh, 2007; Locher, 2006; Watts, 2003). While there is
disagreement between scholars on individual aspects of these postmodern approaches,
they agree in their underlying assumptions that politeness is not static but dynamic, and
not pre-determined but constructed by participants through discourse/interaction. In
addition, these scholars agree that there can be no pre-assigned politeness meanings in
linguistic forms and behavioral strategies.
One important contribution of postmodern approaches to politeness is the
distinction between first-order (im)politeness ((im)politeness1) and second-order
(im)politeness ((im)politeness2), introduced by Watts, Ide and Ehlich (1992). The former
refers to “folk interpretation of (im)politeness” and the latter to “a concept in a
sociolinguistic theory of (im)politeness” (Watts, 2003, p. 4). Also Watts (2003) claims
that “a theory of [second-order] politeness should concern itself with the discursive
struggle over [first-order] politeness, i.e. over the ways in which (im)polite behavior is
evaluated and commented on by lay members and not with the ways in which social
scientists lift the term (im)politeness out of the realm of everyday discourse and elevate it
to the status of a theoretical concept” (p. 9). As such, his theory emphasizes that
politeness is a dynamic notion that should be studied “bottom-up” rather than imposing
researchers’ categories on participants and that judgments of politeness should also come
from participants in any given interaction.
52
To Watts’ basic distinction, Eelen (2001) added that politeness1 should be not
only the concept or notion of politeness, as suggested by Watts, but should also include
practice, that is, people using politeness (pp. 32-34). Thus, he proposed the term
“politeness-as-practice”, which includes three kinds: expressive politeness1, which is the
“politeness encoded in speech, to instances where the speaker aims at ‘polite’ behaviour”;
classificatory politeness1, which is “politeness used as a categorizational tool [that]
covers hearers’ judgments (in actual interaction) of other people’s interactional behaviour
as ‘polite’ or ‘impolite’”; and metapragmatic politeness1, which “covers instances of talk
about politeness as a concept, about what people perceive politeness to be all about” (p.
35). Postmodern theories emphasize that it is (im)politeness1 that should be the primary
focus of empirical study of politeness and that an investigation of politeness should start
with investigating individuals’ concepts of politeness and politeness-as-practice in
everyday communication (Eelen, 2001; Watts, 2003). As Eelen (2001) points out, this is
the kind of research that has been most scarce (p. 254). Some studies have been done, but
they are either intracultural (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1992) or cross-cultural in nature (e.g., Ide
et al., 1992), and therefore their results are of limited use for the study of intercultural
communication and EIL. While such research is invaluable in that it provides insights
into conceptualizations of politeness by the members of a given culture or illustrates how
these conceptualizations differ among members of different cultures, the questions of
how these concepts change within and affect one’s behavior in intercultural encounters
remain unanswered.
53
The postmodern approaches to politeness are pioneering works that attempt not
only to resolve the problems of traditional approaches to politeness but also to bring a
new, critical perspective into the field of linguistic politeness. However, since these
postmodern approaches to politeness are quite new, their assumptions have not been
sufficiently tested in empirical studies yet.
Politeness and Face(work)
Although the definition of politeness is by no means clear, and as Eelen (2001)
has noted, “each theory more or less has its own (private) definition of politeness” (p. 1),
theory and research, including the postmodern approaches, have heavily relied on notions
of face and facework in their definitions/conceptualizations of politeness. The notions of
face and facework go back to the works of Goffman (e.g., 1967), who adapted the
Chinese notion of “face” and defined it as “the positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself [or herself] by the line others assume he[/she] has taken during a
particular contact” (1967, p. 5). Facework, then, he defined as “the actions taken by a
person to make whatever he [she] is doing consistent with face. Facework serves to
counteract “incidents” - that is, events whose effective symbolic implications threaten
face” (1967, p. 12). Goffman also touched upon other ways in which face might be
affected in an interaction: “[i]f the encounter sustains an image of him [her] that he [she]
has long taken for granted, he [she] probably will have few feelings about the matter. If
events establish a face for him [her] that is better than he [she] might have expected, he
[she] is likely to ‘feel good’; if his [her] ordinary expectations are not fulfilled, one
54
expects that he [she] will ‘feel bad’ or ‘feel hurt’” (1967, p. 6). However, it seems that
Goffman viewed the moves that make one “feel good”, for example, as different from
facework.
Subsequent works on politeness and face range in their interpretations of both
concepts. For example, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), taking Goffman’s notions as
their basis, distinguished between positive and negative face and defined positive face as
the individual’s “want that one’s wants be desirable at least to some others” and negative
face as one’s want “that one’s actions be unimpeded by others” (Brown & Levinson,
1978, p. 67). Notion of facework seen through the lens of their theory, then, has been
limited to satisfying the face wants and mitigation of face-threatening acts (FTAs), that is,
acts that threaten one’s positive or negative face. In another example, Shimanoff (1994)
takes a broader perspective on facework and defines it as “behaviors which establish,
enhance, threaten, or diminish the images/identities of communicators [which are] linked
to the basic needs of approval and autonomy” (pp. 159-160).
Some scholars have criticized the positive-negative face distinction, at least the
claim that it is a universal phenomenon, but there is a range of opinions on how this issue
should be resolved. Some suggest that Brown and Levinson’s concepts of face and
facework require some adjustments but in general provide a valuable framework for the
study of face and politeness (e.g., Holtgraves, 2005; O’Driscoll, 2007). Others insist that
Goffman’s interpretation of face should be used (e.g., Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003). There
are also suggestions that theory and research would benefit from going back to the
original Chinese notion of face (e.g., Ho, 1994; Spencer-Oatey, 2005). Finally, there are
55
those who suggest that a re-evaluation of face is necessary but the concept itself can be
adopted by postmodern approaches to face(work) and politeness (e.g., Arundale, 2006;
Haugh, 2007).
One problem caused by the heavy influence of Brown and Levinson’s theory on
the field is that “facework has been employed too often in the literature to refer only to
the description of the mitigation of face-threatening acts” (Locher, 2006, p. 250). Because
of this restrictive conceptualization of facework, Watts and his followers suggest that
politeness theories should go back to Goffman’s original notion of face rather than rely
on positive-negative face distinction (Watts, 2003, p. 25). They also suggest that the term
“relational work” be used instead of “facework” (ibid., p. 23). Locher defines relational
work as comprising “the entire continuum of verbal behavior from direct, impolite, rude
or aggressive interaction through to polite interaction, encompassing both appropriate and
inappropriate forms of social behavior” (Locher, 2004, p. 51, cited in Locher & Watts,
2005, p. 11). Based on this more comprehensive conceptualization, Watts’ discursive
theory of politeness adopts a dynamic approach to face and facework, suggesting that
relational work is “the “work” individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others”
(Locher & Watts, 2005, p. 10).
Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2005), drawing on the notion of face, has suggested a
notion of “rapport management” which defines rapport as “the relative harmony and
smoothness of relations between people” and rapport management as “the management
(or mismanagement) of relations between people [which includes] not only behavior that
enhances or maintains smooth relations, but any kind of behavior that has an impact on
56
rapport, whether positive, negative, or neutral” (2005, p. 96). Thus, similar to “relational
work”, rapport management is more inclusive than Goffman’s original understanding of
facework.
Arundale criticizes Goffman’s concepts in light of recent theoretical
developments and the emergence of the social constructionist theories of interaction and
suggests that “face is not a matter of the individual actor’s public self-image. Instead,
because social selves emerge in relationships with other social selves, face is an emergent
property of relationships, and therefore a relational phenomenon, as opposed to a social
psychological one” (2006, p. 201). He acknowledges, however, that in his original work
on face Goffman indicated that “the person’s face clearly is something that is not lodged
in or on his [her] body, but rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events
in the encounter” (1967, p. 7). However, he suggests that Goffman did not sustain this
interpretation, therefore causing the majority of his followers to treat face as a personal
possession (Arundale, 2009, p. 35). As an alternative to Goffman’s notions of face and
facework, Arundale (1999, 2006, 2009) proposed Face Constituting Theory that treats
face as a dynamic and “dyadic” phenomenon and suggests that face should be viewed as
“a relational and an interactional, rather than an individual phenomenon, in that the social
self is interactionally achieved in relationships with others” (Arundale, 2006, p. 193). The
“relational” account of face emphasizes that the distinction between “self-face” and
“other-face” is not straightforward, and treating face as an “interactional achievement”
emphasizes that no utterance has an inherently encoded face meaning or action (p. 207-
208). Finally, Arundale joins those who suggest a more inclusive conceptualization of
57
facework. His alternative approach to face “provides a framework for theory and research
addressing the full scope of human facework, including the commonly examined strategic
redress of face threat, the much less examined use of outright threat, the largely
overlooked phenomena of outright face support, and the relatively unexamined indexing
of social position apart from threat or support” (Arundale, 2006, p. 195).
Thus, the notions of face, facework, and politeness appear to be interrelated, and
the study of politeness might benefit from being placed under a broader umbrella of
facework and from being studied in connection with other facework strategies employed
to achieve similar goals.
58
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As has been discussed in the previous chapters, the research in cross-cultural
pragmatics and intercultural pragmatics involving L2 English speakers has been abundant,
but there are few studies that look at the pragmatic behavior of L2 speakers of English in
communication with other L2 English speakers (e.g., House, 2003a; Knapp, 2002;
Meeuwis, 1994; Meierkord, 2002). The findings of these studies suggest not only that the
pragmatic competence of L2 English speakers is quite different from that of L1 or
“native” speakers, but also that the nature of interactions between L2 English speakers
requires that their pragmatic competence possess certain characteristics that are not
necessarily typical of L1 speakers’ pragmatic competence. It has been suggested that
pragmatic competence in EIL, or English for intercultural communication, needs to be
dynamic and flexible rather than be based on the “native speaker” model. The major
components of this pragmatic competence are the ability to negotiate meaning and norms
of interaction within a given context and increased metapragmatic awareness (e.g., House,
2003a; McKay, 2009). These suggestions demand further exploration, and the purpose of
this study is to investigate L2 English speakers’ communicative behavior in intercultural
interactions in order to contribute to our understanding of the nature of L2 English
speakers’ pragmatic competence and the processes that affect its development. Since
pragmatic competence is a very broad notion, this study primarily focuses on one aspect
of it, namely, linguistic politeness.
59
Among the relatively small number of studies that explore the pragmatic
competence of L2 English speakers, particularly scarce are those that investigate the
speakers’ own perspectives on intercultural interactions and on their own and their
interlocutors’ communicative behavior in these interactions. However, the studies that
have included the speakers’ own perspectives in their data suggest that eliciting
participants’ own interpretations and analysis of the interaction, their own and their
interlocutors’ behavior can greatly enhance the researcher’s analysis of other data. For
example, House (2002) observed that L2 English speakers’ behavior in interaction
appears to be highly cooperative, supportive and consensus-oriented, but introspective
interviews revealed that superficial consensus can hide misunderstanding.
The need to explore the speakers’ own perspectives on their pragmatic
competence, intercultural interactions, and their own as well as their interlocutors’
communicative behavior is echoed in the field of politeness studies by scholars such as
Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003). These scholars criticize earlier approaches to the
empirical study of linguistic politeness, such as Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987), for
imposing researchers’ definitions and categories on actual language users, suggest that
politeness should be studied “bottom-up”, and submit that judgments of politeness
meanings of linguistic forms and strategies should come from participants themselves in
a given interaction. In light of these criticisms, the purpose of this study is to contribute to
the scholarship on politeness by investigating L2 English speakers’ own
conceptualizations and evaluations of politeness and their reasons behind the choices of
60
particular communicative strategies and linguistic forms, or in other words, their
“politeness-as-practice” (Eelen, 2001).
Therefore, based on the suggestions of EIL scholars regarding the nature of
pragmatic competence of L2 English speakers and postmodern approaches to politeness
outlined above (and discussed in more detail in Chapter 2), this study focuses on the
speakers’ own perspectives on their communicative behavior, pragmatic competence, and
concepts of politeness. The major questions that the present study addresses are as
follows:
• What is the nature of L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness and how are
these notions affected by the hybrid nature of L2 English speakers’ pragmatic
competence?
• What is the place of politeness among factors that affect L2 English speakers’
communicative behavior in interaction and what is the place of politeness among
other types of facework?
• How do L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness and their interaction with
other factors affect their performance in real-life situations that have potential for
misunderstanding and conflict?
In order to answer these questions, this study employed three data collection
instruments: background questionnaires, written production questionnaires and
qualitative interviews, with qualitative interviews being the major source of data.
This chapter will describe the data collection instruments used in this study,
explain the rationale behind the choice of these instruments, and discuss their benefits
61
and limitations in the context of the present study. This chapter will also describe the
research site, participants and data collection procedure. Finally, it will outline the
methods of data analysis.
Data Collection
The data for this study were collected with three data collection techniques:
background questionnaires, open-ended DCT-type written production questionnaires in
the form of critical incidents (CIs), and semi-structured informal interviews. The data
collection procedure will be described in detail later in this chapter.
Background Questionnaire
The background questionnaire (see Appendix A) included demographic questions,
questions related to participants’ experience of learning and using English, and questions
related to their experience of learning and using other languages. As McKay (2009)
points out, collecting demographic information, including speakers’ level of proficiency
in English, is essential in reaching generalizations since it “allows the researcher to
determine if features delineated are typical of proficient bilingual users of English or if
they are rather a feature of learner discourse” (p. 238). In the context of this study, the
collection of participants’ background data was necessary for the purposes of data
triangulation and aided in the analysis and interpretation of the data from participants’
responses to production questionnaires and interviews.
62
Critical Incidents
Critical Incidents (CIs) are broadly defined as “situation[s] that [are] problematic
for cross-cultural communication” (Ebsworth & Ebsworth, 1997, p. 197). CIs are more
often used in intercultural competence development and/or assessment (e.g., Brislin,
1981), but they have been used as data collection techniques in intercultural research as
well (e.g., Ebsworth & Ebsworth, 1997). CIs can be presented as situations occurring
with third parties (e.g., Brislin, 1981) or with the respondents themselves (e.g., Ebsworth
& Ebsworth, 1997), and the latter technique was used in this study. In addition, while CIs
are usually presented as situations followed by a number of responses from which
participants have to choose the most appropriate one (Brislin, 1981; Ebsworth &
Ebsworth, 1997), the CIs in this study were open-ended, leaving it up to the participants
to respond as they decided to be appropriate.
The questionnaire used in this study contained ten CIs (see Appendix B). Each CI
included a detailed description of a hypothetical scenario to which participants were
asked to respond. CIs 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 presented a situation in a classroom context,
CI 2 - a situation with a roommate, CI 3 - a situation with a classmate outside of
classroom, and CI 6 - a situation with a fellow student worker at a part-time job. Each
scenario was followed by a set of questions such as “Would you say anything to your
partner? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and
briefly explain why you would say it.” Questions for different CIs varied slightly to
reflect the specifics of that situation.
63
In addition to ten CIs that presented hypothetical scenarios, the questionnaire
contained an additional item (see Appendix B) which asked participants to provide a
retrospective account of a CI-type of situation that they had encountered in real life. This
item allowed the elicitation of a retrospective account of a realistic communicative
encounter. Also, it provided a more comprehensive picture of a communicative encounter
including not only the account of the participant’s own (verbal and non-verbal) behavior
but also the behavior of his or her interlocutor.
Benefits and Limitations of Critical Incidents as a Type of Written
Production Questionnaire
Compared to other widely used data elicitation techniques such as Discourse
Completion Tasks (DCTs) and multiple-choice questionnaires, CIs have some advantages
crucial for the research questions posed in this study.
On the one hand, CIs are a type of written production questionnaire, as are DCTs,
which are typically used in pragmatics research because they allow the researcher to
control the context of the scenarios to which participants are asked to respond, are
inexpensive, quickly and easily administered, and allow the gathering of a large amount
of data (Schauer, 2009, p. 66). On the other hand, the design of CIs in this study, while
preserving the advantages of DCTs described above, offers participants more response
options, including the option of responding non-verbally or not responding at all, that is,
opting out.
64
Typically, DCTs are structured to elicit a specific type of response. For example,
in the “classic” DCT, not only is the situation described but a rejoinder is also provided
(cf. Kasper 1999, p. 81), thus making this type of data elicitation technique particularly
restrictive. However, in a real-life encounter, a speaker might not produce the speech act
required by the DCT or might opt out of any action, verbal or non-verbal. The
questionnaires used in this study have the ability to capture a wider range of speech acts,
speech act realization strategies, and politeness strategies. Therefore, they have a higher
validity than traditional written DCTs. In addition, it has been argued that in the study of
pragmatics, it is necessary to “consider not only ‘the said’, but also ‘the unsaid’
responses” of the participants (Marti, 2006, p. 1838). For example, Bonikowska (1988)
suggests that studying opting out can “shed light on the nature of the act under study (its
conditions, relationship to S[peaker]’s goals, and to S[peaker]-H[earer] mutual
relationship), factors influencing sociopragmatic decisions, and the role of contextual
factors in speech-act performance” (pp. 179-180). Unlike typical DCTs, CIs in the
present study can capture such ‘unsaid’ responses for further study.
Thus, the choice of open-ended CIs as a data collection technique for this study
was based on the hypothesis that respondents’ choices not only of the verbal realization
of a given speech act but also of the choice of the act itself or non-action will lead to
gaining insight into their pragmatic competence. In addition, unlike most other data
elicitation techniques, such as questionnaires, role-plays and DCTs, which usually
present scenarios that do not necessarily involve a potential conflict of face loss, CIs
suggest scenarios in which a conflict and/or face loss is inherent, thus presenting a bigger
65
challenge for L2 English speakers (e.g., Kotani, 2008) and putting more pressure on the
participant who opens the interaction, requiring her/him to consider with greater care the
choice of communicative strategy and its realization. Even if politeness is not mentioned
among the factors affecting participants’ behavior, it is also a valuable finding as it
provides insight into which interactional events do, and which do not, elicit evaluations
of politeness, when it is irrelevant, and what other notions are related to/associated with
politeness, all of which are also the crucial questions for postmodern theories of
politeness (cf. Eelen, 2001, p. 255). Thus, participants’ responses to CIs allow the
researcher to explore the relationship between politeness and other factors that affect
communication and the place of politeness among other types of facework (Arundale,
2006; Goffman, 1967) or relational work (Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003).
Finally, as Eelen (2001) points out, some kind of elicitation procedure is
necessary in the study of politeness. Naturally occurring spontaneous examples of
politeness would have been preferable, but they are difficult to obtain as “in everyday
interaction people only seldom verbalize evaluations of (im)politeness” (Eelen, 2001, p.
255). Besides, for comparison purposes, it is necessary to collect participants’ responses
to similar/identical communicative situations, which is nearly impossible to capture in
real-life encounters.
The most obvious and significant limitation of using CIs is that they elicit written
not spoken responses and are not spontaneous productions of discourse in a natural
setting. Thus, they are likely to elicit one-utterance responses and do not allow the
investigation of actual interaction between participants. As such, they cannot provide any
66
information on the dynamics of the conversation and such discourse features as the
structuring of talk exchanges, speaker-listener coordination, and participants’ joint
achievement of transactional and interpersonal goals (Kasper, 1999, p. 72, 80). However,
elicited interactions can be very useful data collection procedures and production
questionnaires are useful, although for a more limited range of research questions than
spoken interaction methods (ibid., p. 73, 80). For example, Golato’s (2003) study, in
which she compared responses to compliments in DCTs and naturally occurring
interaction, led her to conclude that,
[written DCTs] are in a crucial sense metapragmatic in that they explicitly require
participants not to conversationally interact, but to articulate what they believe
would be situationally appropriate responses within possible, yet imaginary,
interactional settings. As such, responses within a DCT can be seen as indirectly
revealing a participant’s accumulated experience within a given setting, while
bearing questionable resemblance to the data which actually shaped that
experience. (as cited in Woodfield, 2008, p. 46)
This observation is crucial for the purposes of the current study. Discursive
approaches to politeness argue that politeness is “discursive” not only in the sense that it
is constructed in immediate discourse but also in the sense that it is a result of multiple
discourses. As Locher (2006) explains, “[i]t is argued that every Community of Practice
draws on knowledge about appropriate relational work7 established in previous
7According to the discursive approach to politeness, politeness constitutes a behavior within a broader range of relational work (e.g., Locher, 2006).
67
interactions” (p. 253). In this sense, responses to written production questionnaire are a
useful way to capture the discursive politeness of EIL speakers in the latter sense.
Another disadvantage is that the situations in the ten CIs are hypothetical, and in
that sense, not authentic. This is a significant limitation because as Kasper (1999) notes,
“the overall purpose of an interaction is its most powerful structuring force” (p. 72).
However, measures were taken to increase the authenticity of the CIs used in this study.
Specifically, all situations chosen for the questionnaire deal with everyday type of
communicative encounters, in naturalistic contexts, that are consistent with participants’
identities, that is, they are not required to imagine being someone they are not. Thus, it
was anticipated that participants would not find the CIs unnatural and would have no
difficulty imagining experiencing such a situation even if they had not experienced it in
real life. However, when participants indicated that they had not experienced certain
situations, such situations were excluded from the discussion during the interviews and
data analysis.
The usefulness and effectiveness of production questionnaires as data collection
technique is best summarized in the words of Kasper (1999):
When carefully designed, production questionnaire are useful for gathering
information about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of the strategies and
linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented, and about
their sociopragmatic knowledge of the context factors under which particular
strategic and linguistic choices are appropriate. Whether or not speakers use
exactly the same strategies and forms in actual discourse is a different matter, but
68
the questionnaire responses indicate what strategic and linguistic options are
consonant with pragmatic norms and what context factors influence their choice
(although recent studies show some qualifications…). In interlanguage pragmatic
research, we may be interested in finding out what L2 learners know as opposed
to what they can do under the much more demanding conditions of conversational
encounters. (p. 84, italics in the original)
Thus, since this study focuses on EIL speakers’ (im)politeness1, what participants
know about politeness is as pertinent a question as how exactly participants do politeness.
As Kasper (1999) and the research briefly discussed above indicate, production
questionnaires can provide important insights into what speakers do as well. Johnston and
colleagues (1998) also contend that “the strategies and linguistic forms used in speech act
performance - the conventions of means and form of linguistic action under given
contextual conditions - are believed to be adequately represented in responses [to
production questionnaires]” (p. 158, cited in Woodfield, 2008, p. 45).
Semi-structured Informal Interviews
The disadvantages of CIs discussed above suggest that CIs alone cannot be
sufficient for this study as they are unable to provide data rich enough to answer the
research questions. However, combined with interviews which strategically employ
individualized questions to make participants elaborate on their responses to CIs, they
create an effective combination. Interview questions allow the investigation of whether
politeness is among speakers’ pragmatic considerations, what its significance and
69
relationship with other factors are, and how speakers conceptualize politeness on the
metapragmatic level. As with CIs, even if politeness is not mentioned by participants as a
factor affecting their communicative choices, it is an important result as it allows the
researcher to explore the place of politeness among other types of facework. Also, as
Woodfield (2008) observed in her study, “the voices of the respondents … (as evidenced
in their verbal report) suggest that at times such reports may be at odds with their written
performance” (p. 61). Thus, the interviews were also a crucial means of written
performance validation and data triangulation in this study.
There were two sets of questions in the interviews (see Appendix C for a sample
list of questions). The first set of questions was similar to the questions that are used in
retrospective “verbal reports” (e.g., Cohen, 2004) or “verbal protocols” (e.g., Schauer,
2009) in order to “reconstruct psycholinguistic processes that the speakers utilized in an
effort to produce the given speech acts in given situations” (Cohen, 2004, p. 321). They
allow the researcher to see “what the respondents actually perceived about each situation
(e.g. what they perceived about the relative role status of the interlocutors) and how their
perceptions influenced their responses . . . how they planned out their responses, and
what they thought of the social event of going through the tasks altogether” (Cohen, 2004,
p. 321). While Cohen justifies the use of verbal reports in speech act studies, other
aspects of pragmatic competence can also be tapped into using this method, and the
participants in this study were expected to produce speech acts in at least some CIs.
This study relied on a combination of CIs and interviews not only to remedy the
problems of CIs but also because it has been pointed out that with all advantages they
70
have on their own, verbal reports work best when combined with other data elicitation
techniques: “when combined with other forms of data elicitation, verbal report data may
provide researchers with added insights into language learners’ pragmatic knowledge and
their choice and formulation of speech act strategies” (Woodfield, 2008, p. 44).
Woodfield (2008) also observed that “research studies of pragmatics employing
performance data only do not provide respondent perspectives on their task performance,
thus difficulties that research participants experience with the elicitation instrument may
pass unobserved” (p. 61). Moreover, as the study conducted by House (2002) and
discussed in the previous chapter illustrates, introspective reports reveal problems,
cultural differences and misunderstandings that might be hidden below the surface of the
cooperative, supportive and consensus-oriented behavior of the interlocutors.
In addition, as Schauer (2009) points out,
verbal protocols … can provide researchers with information on what other
possible answers the participants may have considered and what made them select
their final choice. Thus employing self-reports can help to answer whether
learners rejected certain options because of non-pragmatic considerations such as
grammatical complexity of certain structures or because of specific pragmatic
considerations. (p. 61)
Grammatical complexity and participants’ real or perceived lack of grammatical
competence are rarely explicitly addressed in data analysis in the studies of pragmatic
competence, whether it be the study of speech acts or politeness (strategies). However, it
has been pointed out that it might affect speakers’ performance. For example, in her study
71
of Japanese speakers’ behavior in problematic communicative encounters with
Americans, Kotani (2008) found that it was the lack of confidence in their English skills
that led some of the participants in her study to avoid engaging in the problematic
interaction rather than considerations of face. Therefore, the ability to account for
grammatical considerations affecting participants’ behavior in CIs provided by verbal
report questions increases the validity of data and their analysis in this study.
Finally, relevant to the purposes of this study is Spencer-Oatey’s (2009)
suggestion that “face sensitivity [is] a subjective evaluation that cannot always be judged
from the discourse data alone” (p. 152). She claims that “[s]upplementary data, in the
form of post-event interview comments, which if possible include playback comments,
are needed in order to gain insights into people’s rapport-related concerns and reactions,
as well as into their interactional goals” (p. 152).
After the verbal report types of questions, tailored to individual speakers’ answers
to CIs, another set of interview questions were addressed to all participants aiming
specifically at investigating the speakers’ concepts of politeness (see Appendix C). Since
interviews aimed at eliciting participants’ own concepts and evaluations of politeness,
they allowed for the study of (im)politeness1 without superimposing researcher’s views
and categorizations, thus enhancing the validity of the data.
Data Collection Procedure
The data were collected over a period of two academic semesters: the Fall
semester of 2010 and the Spring semester of 2011. The researcher made recruitment
72
visits to each ESL Composition class offered at the University of Arizona whose
instructor gave her or his consent for such a visit. During the visit, the researcher made a
recruitment speech, the text of which can be found in Appendix D. At the end of the visit,
the researcher distributed cards with her contact information so that the students
interested in the study could contact her privately, via phone or e-mail, with questions or
to begin their participation. On several occasions when the recruitment speech was given
at the end of the class per instructor’s request, students approached the researcher right
after the speech, and in those cases the copy of the consent form and the questionnaires
were given to the participant at that time.
When a potential participant contacted the researcher by phone or e-mail, a
meeting was scheduled at the participant’s convenience to receive the study consent form.
In the case when the participant read and signed the consent form at the time of this
meeting, he or she immediately received the questionnaires. Participants were offered a
choice of receiving either a hard copy of both questionnaires to be filled out by hand or
an electronic copy to be filled out on their computers at their convenience.
After the participants completed their questionnaires, they contacted the
researcher via phone or e-mail to schedule the time to return the questionnaires and the
time for the interview at their convenience. Participants were asked to complete the
questionnaires within one week of receiving them. One week was given so that
participants would not feel pressured and would be able to devote enough time to the task
and provide thoughtful responses to all items. However, in many cases the participants
took longer to complete their questionnaires, and on several occasions the researcher had
73
to send follow-up e-mail reminders to the participants. If they had requested more time,
more time was allowed to ensure participant retention. A number of potential participants
did not return their questionnaires and did not respond to the reminders, and thus were
withdrawn from the study.
Those participants who received electronic copies of the questionnaires typically
e-mailed the filled-out ones to the researcher at the time of scheduling their interview.
Those who received hard copies either gave back the filled-out questionnaires to the
researcher on one day and scheduled the interview for another day or brought the filled-
out questionnaires to the interview. Upon submitting the filled-out questionnaire, the
participant was given a ten-dollar gift certificate.
Typically, the interview was scheduled not earlier than one week and not later
than one month after the return of their completed questionnaires. This timeframe
allowed the researcher to conduct a preliminary analysis of questionnaire responses and
prepare the individualized questions for the interview. In addition, the responses and the
thought processes involved in the decision-making were fresher in participant’s memories
than after a longer period of time between the submission of the questionnaires and the
interview. However, due to the constraints of the everyday lives of the participants,
following this timeframe was not always possible. All interviews were conducted not
later than a month after the submission of questionnaires, but on some occasions the
participants requested that the questionnaire be returned and the interview be held on the
same day. Typically, the researcher made a copy of the filled-out questionnaire so that
during the interview both she and the participant would have a copy to consult while
74
discussing the participant’s answers, but if the participant brought the filled-out
questionnaires to the interview, one copy of the questionnaires was shared by the
researcher and the participant. Also, in this case, the researcher had only several minutes
for preliminary analysis of the questionnaires responses and the adjustment of the
interview questions.
As was anticipated, not all of the participants chose to proceed to the second part
of the study, the interview. However, the retention rate was unexpectedly high, and
sixteen out of twenty participants took part in the interview. The interview began with
small talk to make the participant feel comfortable with the interview situation and with
the researcher. Next, some questions seeking an explanation of or elaboration on the
answers to the background questionnaire were asked. After that, each participant was
asked a set of questions related to his or her responses to selected CIs. Due to the time
constraints of the interviews, about three CIs were typically selected by the researcher for
a detailed discussion based on the preliminary analysis of participants’ responses.
Three major criteria determined the selection of CIs for the interview: authenticity,
relevance, and the level of comfort. Authenticity here refers to the question of whether
the participant experienced the particular, or similar, situation in real life. Relevance
refers to the question of how relevant the participant’s response to the situation was to the
issues of politeness and facework. That is, those situations in responses to which the
participant had expressed some politeness considerations of orientation to face were
prioritized. Finally, if the participant showed reluctance to discuss a certain situation, the
interviewer moved to a different one to prevent the participant’s withdrawal. In addition
75
to selected CIs, a detailed discussion was conducted around each participant’s response to
item 11 (narrative/retrospective account).
In the last part of the interview, a set of questions related to participants’ concepts
of politeness and the sources of their knowledge of these concepts was asked. Interview
questions were guided by participants’ responses to CIs, and follow-up questions were
sometimes asked to clarify or expand on their responses. Special care was taken by the
researcher not to introduce words such as “polite(ness)”, “rude(ness)” and “face”, so that
any discussion of these concepts would be initiated by participants themselves. Only in
the few cases when these words were not introduced by the participant herself or himself
during the discussion of CIs did the researcher introduce them in the last part of the
interview.
The time of the interviews ranged from 35 minutes to 1 hour. Each interview was
audio recorded.
Research Site
Participants for this study were recruited in ESL sections of English Composition
classes at the University of Arizona (English 107, 107+, and 108). Permission to conduct
the recruitment at this site was granted by the English Department Writing Program that
offers these classes. During the academic year 2010-2011 when this study was conducted,
the ESL sections of English Composition classes at the University of Arizona typically
enrolled 23 students, but the actual number of students in a class differed, due to students
dropping out as the semester progressed. The non-ESL sections of these classes are titled
76
First-Year Composition, but students in both non-ESL and ESL sections are not
necessarily freshmen. Although the majority of students do indeed enroll in these classes
in their first year, some students do it in their sophomore or junior year.
This research site was chosen for several reasons. The main reason is that these
classes are rich intercultural environments. Students in these classes come from a variety
of linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and they regularly engage in group- and pair-work
as a part of classroom activities. Moreover, for many L2 English speaking students at the
University of Arizona these classes are the primary, and according to some participants in
the present study the only, context where they have an opportunity to interact with peers
other than L1 English speakers or their co-nationals. In addition, the researcher was well
familiar with this context as she had been teaching English Composition classes,
including ESL sections, at the University of Arizona for three years prior to the beginning
of the study, and was teaching ESL sections during both semesters when the data for this
study were collected.
The demographics of ESL sections of English Composition classes at the
University of Arizona change with time, but at the time when this study was conducted,
the majority of students in these classes came from East Asian countries, primarily from
China, with a number of students from Thailand and Korea. A significant number of
students came from Middle Eastern countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and
Egypt. And some students came from other parts of the world, such as South America,
Central America, Europe, Africa and other parts of Asia.
77
Participants
A total of twenty students participated in the first part of this study (completion of
questionnaires), and sixteen of them participated in both parts of the study8.
The group of participants in the study, although recruited from different sections
of ESL Composition classes, reflected the typical demographic composition of such
classes in terms of the countries and languages they represented. Out of 20 students who
submitted their questionnaires, 10 students were from China (7 female and 3 male), 2
from Korea (1 female and 1 male), 2 from Saudi Arabia (1 female and 1 male), 2 female
students from Kuwait, 1 female student from Iran, 1 female student from Central
America9, 1 female student from East Africa10, and 1 male student from India. The only
characteristic of the group of study participants that was somewhat atypical is that it was
dominated by females. While this might be just a coincidence, it is not unreasonable to
suggest that it was caused by the fact that the researcher is a female and thus females felt
more comfortable volunteering to participate in the study that potentially involved face-
to-face interviews between the participant and the researcher.
The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 27 years, although the majority of
the participants were 19 to 21 years old. 11 participants were freshmen, 6 sophomores, 2
juniors and 1 transfer student, and the amount of time they spent in the US by the time of
8 Two students were withdrawn from the study after the first part and are not included in the total number of participants. One student failed to properly sign the study consent form, and the other indicated on her questionnaire that she is a minor, although during the recruitment speech the researcher indicated that only students 18 years old or older were eligible to participate in the study. The questionnaires of these two students were not used in data analysis. However, both students received gift certificates for completing the questionnaires as a token of gratitude for their cooperation. 9 The specific country was concealed to protect the participant’s identity. 10 The specific country was concealed to protect the participant’s identity.
78
the study ranged from 2 months to 4 years, although the majority of participants had been
in the US for only 3-4 months11.
The names of the participants were changed for the purposes of reporting the data
and in data analysis in order to protect their identities.
While the level of proficiency in English differed to some extent among the
participants and no tests of English proficiency were conducted for this study, all of the
participants were proficient users of English, which is indicated by the fact that they were
enrolled in regular classes at a major US university, although some participants self-
identified their proficiency level in their responses to background questionnaires as
“intermediate”.
Data Analysis
Responses to CIs were collected, and the handwritten responses were typed.
Interviews were audio recorded, and the audio recordings were transcribed. Transcription
notations can be found in Appendix E. Interviews are considered to be the main source of
data in this study. Responses to CIs, while being an invaluable source of data, primarily
constitute the basis for further exploration of the participants’ reflections on their notions
and experiences.
The data were analyzed using qualitative methods. The main methods used were
discourse analysis (e.g., Gee, 2005) and ethnography of communication (e.g., Saville-
Troike, 2002), complemented by such theoretical frameworks as postmodern approaches
11 More detailed information about each participant is provided in the data analysis chapters.
79
to politeness and face(work), “third place”, and Agar’s (1994) notion of “intercultural
frame”. Each of these frameworks is discussed in more detail in the corresponding data
analysis chapter.
Speech Act Theory, specifically the classifications of speech act strategies from
Trosborg (1994), was used to identify the specific strategies used by the participants in
their responses. However, following the social constructionist perspective and the
theoretical assumption of postmodern approaches to politeness (e.g., Arundale, 2006;
Eelen, 2001; Watts, 2003), no politeness meanings were assigned to these strategies
based on Trosborg’s (1994) classification.
In the constructionist perspective participants’ interview data and the researcher’s
analysis of them do not represent “objective” reality or “true” knowledge. As Eelen
(2001) explains, “[w]ithin a view that focuses on the processes of construction of social
reality, politeness should be seen as such a constructional process, with evaluations of
politeness as particular ‘representations of reality’ instead of as factual references to an
objective reality” (p. 247). Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) also emphasize that,
“[i]nterview knowledge is socially constructed in the interaction of interviewer and
interviewee. The knowledge is not merely found, mined, or given, but is actively created
through questions and answers, and the product is co-authored by interviewer and
interviewee” (p. 54).
Finally, it is important to note that in qualitative interviews, data analysis is not
limited to the analysis of the interview transcriptions. As Kvale and Brinkmann (2009)
submit, “the analysis may also, to varying degrees, be built into the interview situation
80
itself. In such forms of analysis - interpreting “as you go” - considerable parts of the
analysis are “pushed forward” into the interview situation itself. The final analysis then
becomes not only easier and more amendable, but also rests on more secure ground. Put
strongly, the ideal interview is already analyzed by the time the sound recorder is turned
off” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 190). While it might be unrealistic to have the
complete analysis done by the end of the interview, in the present study some analysis
was indeed “built into the interview”. For example, the choice of follow-up questions
during the interview was based on the researcher’s analysis of the interviewee’s response
to the previous question and the preceding discourse.
81
CHAPTER 4: PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND POLITENESS IN THE “THIRD
PLACE”
The Notion of the “Third Place”
The notion of the “third place”12 essentially refers to the assumption that the
development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) or communicative
competence in any given additional language requires not the adoption of the “target”
culture but the creation of a new culture, which emerges from interaction between
individuals through their negotiation. This “third place”, however, is not just a new static
culture born out of the two different static cultures. On the contrary, it is a dynamic,
dialogic process, with the focus on the creation of new meanings through negotiation.
The theories of the “third place” in the field of SLA are closely related to Bhabha’s
(1990) construct of the “third space” and have received a noticeable amount of attention
in recent research (e.g., Delanoy, 2006; Casmir, 1999; Li & Girvan, 2004; Lo Bianco et
al, 1999; Kramsch, 1993). Bhabha’s (1990) concept of the “third space” was not
originally related to the fields of intercultural communication or SLA, but it affected
these fields by suggesting a new look on the concept of culture as hybrid in nature.
Bhabha (1990) explains the “third space” in the following way:
… all forms of culture are continually in a process of hybridity. But for me the
importance of hybridity is not to be able to trace two original moments from
which the third emerges, rather hybridity to me is the ‘third space’ which enables
other positions to emerge. This third space displaces the histories that constitute it,
12 Also referred to as the “third culture” (e.g., Casmir, 1999), “third space” (Bhabha, 1990), or “transculturality” (e.g., Delanoy, 2006).
82
and sets up new structures of authority, new political initiatives, which are
inadequately understood through received wisdom…[T]he importance of
hybridity is that it bears the traces of those feelings and practices that inform it,
just like a translation, so that hybridity puts together the traces of certain other
meanings and discourses. (It does not give them the authority of being prior in the
sense of being original: they are prior only in the sense of being anterior.) The
process of cultural hybridity gives rise to something different, something new and
unrecognisable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation. (p. 211)
Casmir (1999) applied the concept of the “third culture” to the study of
intercultural communication. He suggested that earlier studies and theories of
intercultural communication neglected the dynamic nature of cultures and studied
cultures as “endstates”. He also claimed that they approached intercultural
communication “as an artifact of culture-comparisons and -contrasts”, disregarding the
actual communication processes involved in the interaction between individual human
beings (pp. 91-92). His third-culture building approach was designed to address these
inadequacies in earlier works, specifically, their failure to provide a deeper understanding
of “reasons why and how human beings build or construct communication systems,
relationships, and new models for their socio-cultural existence, which go beyond their
supposedly constraining cultural repertoires” (p. 92). Casmir suggested that
communication is “an ongoing negotiation of meaning” (p. 98, italics in the original).
This new understanding of culture or “culture-building” led Casmir to criticize traditional
intercultural communication research and “simplistic dichotomies”, such as Hofstede’s
83
“cultural dimensions” (e.g., 1980), for the failure to “explain or help us understand how,
why and when individuals overcame their differences in actual intercultural, dialogic
interactions” (p. 101). Casmir’s concept of “third culture”, however, has significant
limitations for EIL. First of all, Casmir views “third cultures” as the results of a long-term
process. He suggests that “[i]t is impossible to build third-cultures, with their lasting
relationships and value systems, in a short time. In fact, the possibility of establishing and
maintaining meaningful relationships and truly dialogic, interactive communication will
probably be severely limited in short-term interactions” (p. 112). However, EIL
communication encounters are very frequently limited to such short-term interactions,
and while what participants in EIL interactions are building might be “limited”, they are
nevertheless “third cultures”.
This notion has been adopted by SLA scholars as well, who often use the label
“third place”. According to Kramsch (1993), in relation to second/foreign language
acquisition and teaching, the “third place” refers to the development of a “third
perspective, that would enable learners to take both an insider’s and an outsider’s view on
C1 and C2” (p. 210). According to Lo Bianco and his colleagues (1999), language
learning is the process of exploration rather than assimilation, and in light of this view,
the “third place” refers to the place “between the native linguaculture and the target
linguaculture” (p. 181).
Similarly to the concepts discussed above, the “third place” in foreign language
education contexts is hybrid, “dynamic and is being renegotiated with every intercultural
interaction and with every opportunity for new learning” (Lo Bianco et al., 1999, p. 181).
84
Lo Bianco and colleagues add that, “the third place is not a fixed point which will be
common to all learners, rather the nature of the third place is negotiated by each user as
an intersection of the cultural perspectives of self and other” (p. 181).
The “Third Place” and Pragmatic Competence in EIL
As was discussed in the previous chapters, within the EIL paradigm pragmatic
competence in EIL is seen as a highly dynamic, flexible ability to negotiate meaning and
norms of interaction within a given context. Many EIL as well as ELF researches agree
with the assumption that successful communication depends on speakers’ negotiation
skills more than on any other aspect of their competence (e.g., House, 2002; McKay,
2009). Thus, the concept of the “third place” can offer a useful framework for the
investigation of the development of pragmatic competence in EIL. While few of the
scholars in the fields of EIL/ELF use the notions of the “third culture” or “third place”
explicitly, some refer to essentially the same notion, evoking the notion of hybridity as
the major characteristic of pragmatic competence in EIL/ELF.
For example, a study by Blum-Kulka (1990) found that the requesting behavior of
Hebrew-English bilinguals exhibits “an ‘intercultural style’ - a third, hybrid way” in
which the speakers “realize requests differently in each language, and … differ
significantly from monolingual speakers’ performance - but not because of lack of
competence” (as cited in House, 2003b, p. 573).
In another example, Meierkord (2002) found the metaphor of the “third culture”
or “third space”, and especially the notion of hybridity, useful in her discussion of the
85
role of culture in lingua franca communication in English. She observed that in the
interaction among ELF speakers a number of characteristics of their communicative
behavior could be attributed to their respective L1/C1s, such as the use of proverbial
expressions and certain forms of routine formulae (p. 114). However, she also observed
that some characteristics of the communicative behavior of ELF speakers in her study did
not reflect the communicative norms of their respective L1/C1s, and in fact, some
speakers exhibited characteristics that were quite the opposite from the norms of their
L1/C1s (pp. 117-118). In addition, some features of the speakers’ communicative styles
seemed to be characteristic of the lingua franca interactions while they could not be
attributed to either the speakers’ L1/C1s or the target language/culture, such as the use of
laughter as a substitute for verbal back-channels and pauses as markers of topic and
phrase boundaries (p. 120). While it might be difficult to trace the roots of such behaviors,
it is clear that communicative styles of the speakers are influenced by more that one
culture, and it is not simply a sum of two cultures, native and target, but a more complex
hybrid.
House (2003a) argues that the community of English as a lingua franca speakers
is “a kind of “intersociety” which interactants must create from scratch with each new
ELF event” (p. 148). She also argues that ELF speakers must develop
a kind of “in-between” style of interaction, a third or hybrid way. Thus, rather
than looking at ELF talk as an instance of Interlanguage, one might consider ELF
as a hybrid variety - something derived from heterogeneous sources. Hybridity
seen here as something positive, as border-crossing, as a procedure to create
86
multiphone texts where multiple voices show an “inner dialogicity” despite being
enacted in one particular language - English. (p. 149)
Burger (2000) also claims that “it will be characteristic of a future global standard
of English - if any may ever emerge - that it will be of a hybrid character and open to any
influence from existing varieties of English. However, the resulting hybrid will
necessarily be of a dynamic nature, shaped by the participants of the individual
interactions” (as cited in Meierkord, 2002, p. 125).
It might be suggested that hybrid pragmatic competence sets L2 speakers up for
pragmatic failure, but it is important to understand that the “third place” does not mean
that any behavior the speaker chooses is appropriate. As Thomas (1983) explains, “[t]o
give the learner the knowledge to make an informed choice and allowing her/him the
freedom to flout pragmatic conventions, is to acknowledge her/his individuality and
freedom of choice and to respect her/his system of values and beliefs” (p. 110). On the
other hand, not all pragmatic norms are equal, and not all of them can be flouted, at least
not without negative consequences. Thomas (1983) also suggests that
[i]t is not the responsibility of the language teacher qua linguist to enforce Anglo-
Saxon standards of behaviour, linguistic or otherwise. Rather, it is the teacher’s
job to equip the student to express her/himself in exactly the way s/he chooses to
do so - rudely, tactfully, or in an elaborately polite manner. What we want to
prevent is her/his being unintentionally rude or subservient. It may, of course,
behove the teacher to point out the likely consequences of certain types of
linguistic behaviour. (p. 96, italics in the original)
87
Thus, the ability to construct “third places” requires critical cultural awareness
and increased metapragmatic awareness so that the learner would make informed choices
“about what to hold and what to relinquish, what to adopt and what to let pass”
(LoBianco et al., 1999, p. 181).
Constructing the “Third Place” of Pragmatic Competence and Politeness in EIL
When it comes to the notions, evaluations, and expressions of politeness, which
constitutes a part of pragmatic competence in a language, the notion of the “third place”
appears to offer a valuable framework for the analysis of the metapragmatic knowledge
and pragmatic behavior of L2 English speakers in intercultural encounters. In the present
study all participants revealed, in one way or another, the hybrid and dynamic nature of
the pragmatic norms and concepts of politeness that affect their use of English. However,
individual participants’ accounts differed significantly; and therefore this chapter will
present the data from five participants’ responses to CIs and interviews, which pertain to
their “third place”-building processes, in order to illustrate some commonalities and
differences in L2 English speakers’ experiences.
Ahmed
Ahmed is a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian, a native speaker of Arabic, who self-
assesses his proficiency in English as intermediate-advanced. He had studied English in
Saudi Arabia for about 8 years and had been in the United States for about 4 months as a
university student at the time of this study.
88
In his response to CI 9 “Hurt Hand” (see Appendix B) Ahmed wrote the
following:
I would have thanked him every time I see him, because he has helped me in a critical time. That student will hate me because of how many times I will thank him ;pp
Although in his written response Ahmed did not provide a specific thanking
strategy that he would use, during the interview he confirmed that despite the joking
nature of the second part of his written response indicated by the “smiley faces”, he
would, indeed, thank that person multiple times. He explained his belief that it would be
an appropriate behavior by referring to Saudi Arabian cultural norms:
when somebody is doing something good to you - in my country - you have - like you owe something [aha] because you know some people here - in the United States - you do a lot of things for them and they just ignore you next day that’s - I dunno why they do - it’s maybe their culture - but in my culture if somebody do you something - and the next day you see them he’s waving his hand for you and you ignore him [uhum] that’s a big thing - that’s - you shouldn’t do that you should thank him [okay] and I would really thank him too many times until he says oh man shut the fuck up - I can’t - okay I know you’re welcome just go [uhum] I would thank him too many times … it’s my customs
Ahmed used the words “in my country”, “in my culture”, “it’s my customs”,
which clearly identify this behavior as his L1 cultural norm. He also exhibited an
awareness that such behavior might differ from the L2 cultural norm when he said: “some
people … in the United States - you do a lot of things for them and they just ignore you
next day that’s … it’s maybe their culture”. It appears from this excerpt that Ahmed
deliberately chose to conform to his L1 norms in thanking behavior, at least in these
particular circumstances, since he repeated more than once that he would thank the
person who had done him a favor multiple times. However, the following interview
89
excerpt shows that it is not as straightforward. First of all, Ahmed explained the
variability of norms pertaining to expressing gratitude in Saudi Arabia/Arabic:
it is enough in my country to thanks one time - but it is - it’s the same thing here they thanks for one time or - in my country sometimes we do it more than one time but the problem is when you see that person [aha] the other day [okay] you would appreciate - like for example if somebody do something for me [uhum] I would appreciate that all my life
He also appeared to be aware of the variability of norms in the United States/English:
some Americans do the same thing as I do [uhum] not all Americans like just ignore [aha] but most yeah I mean I have some friends sometimes they ask me for cigarettes - and I give them the cigarette - oh man I really appreciate that and they see me the next day -- I don’t know I don’t remember him but he’s * I gave him a cigarette ** I really appreciate that [uhum] some people come to me and give me like one dollar and like give me a cigarette [aha] I say keep it - I don’t want your money [uhum] just take the cigarette - and he just appreciate that and see me next time he just said - hi The awareness of the variability of judgments of appropriateness illustrates
Ahmed’s metapragmatic and cultural awareness. Ahmed displayed his awareness of all
three types of variability in pragmatic behavior: intra-cultural or situational, cross-
cultural, and individual (Blum-Kulka & Olstein, 1984). Individual variability was
acknowledged when Ahmed observed that in the United States some people do not thank
when he expects it: “some people … in the United States - you do a lot of things for them
and they just ignore you next day”, while on some occasions speakers thank explicitly: “I
gave him a cigarette **[and he said] I really appreciate that”, or implicitly express their
gratitude through some expression of positive feelings, in Ahmed’s example, a friendly
greeting: “see me next time he just said - hi”. Situational variability was referred to when
he explained that in Saudi Arabia thanking multiple times is not always required, but
“sometimes” it is. Cross-cultural variability, then, could be seen in the first excerpt where
90
he differentiated between “my culture” and “their culture”. Thus, Ahmed’s choice of
behavior in a given situation is based on his awareness of different behaviors and shows
that he draws on his knowledge of both C1/L1 and C2/L2 in making his choice from the
repertoire of thanking strategies. Thus, while Ahmed’s written response illustrated one of
such choices, it is evident that his pragmatic competence in regard to thanking is more
complex than a simple rule such as “somebody did some thing for you - express your
appreciation multiple times/every time you see that person”.
These experiences and observations made within the English language speaking
community affect Ahmed’s pragmatic competence, but they do not result in simply
adopting one or another set of norms when he notices the differences between C1/L1 and
C2/L2. Rather, he critically examines options available in C1/L1 and C2/L2 and
selectively adds certain strategies to his repertoire, thus creating a hybrid. As LoBianco
and his colleagues (1999) explain, the main way the “third place” is constructed is
through the learner “mak[ing] choices about what to hold and what to relinquish, what to
adopt and what to let pass” (p. 181). Ahmed appears to follow this process in his “third
place” building.
The hybrid nature of Ahmed’s pragmatic competence is evidenced throughout his
interview. In some situations, he claimed to be as comfortable following the pragmatic
norms of C2/L2 as he is following the norms of C1/L1. For example, to the question of
whether he feels comfortable changing his ways to fit the American13 way, such as with
13 In data analysis and discussion the use of the labels such as “Americans”, “Saudis”, “Chinese”, “natives”, “native speakers”, etc., follows the participant’s usage. That is, since Ahmed used the label “Americans” in his interview, the researcher also used this label during the interview with him and in the analysis/discussion of Ahmed’s interview data.
91
thanking strategies, he replied, “I have no problem to do that”. In other cases, he
expressed his preference for American English pragmatic norms over the norms of Saudi
Arabian Arabic. For example, shortly after claiming that he is comfortable with following
the American English norms of thanking behavior, Ahmed spontaneously engaged in a
narrative that gave an example of another speech event. He described exceedingly long
telephone conversation-closing sequences in Arabic that his mother and aunt usually
engage in and expressed his preference for the shorter American English sequences:
“here it’s bye and that’s it”. In his narrative Ahmed explained that while he likes the
Saudi behavior with all the kind wishes and other expressions of positive feelings that the
interlocutors address to each other within such sequence, it often feels to him to be “a
waste of time”.
Ahmed’s account of his thanking behavior also illustrates the dynamic nature of
his pragmatic competence in English. He claimed that he adjusts his behavior to follow
the norms of American English in interaction with Americans:
Ahmed: … I would definitely change here [uhum] especially with Americans - I will tell you why [aha] when somebody uhh when somebody would do me a favor I would say thank you [uhum] I really appreciate that - and that’s it [uhum] now - when I came here - I was like when somebody do me a favor oh thanks man I really appreciate that thank you thank you I really appreciate - something like that [uhum] and then I feel like they say - look at this fool - they just like consider you - a weakling and have no personality and always like looking for help from people [aha] that’s why I wanted to change [I see] for example thanks with confidence - thanks I really appreciate that and that’s it - I will move - that’s it
R14: aha so you have changed this [this behavior right?
Ahmed: [yeah it depends on the people I’m trea- I’m dealing with [aha] Americans I change Saudis no
14 R in interview excerpts stands for the researcher.
92
In this excerpt Ahmed explained that he adjusts his pragmatic behavior with
Saudis and Americans based on his experience of interacting with the members of these
different speech communities and on his observations of the behavior of the insiders of a
given community, in such a way as to prevent potentially negative interpretation of his
behavior by his American interlocutors. On the one hand, it is an important feature of
Ahmed’s pragmatic competence, which can insure his success in EIL interactions. For
example, Canagarajah (2006) suggests that while the traditional approach to English
language teaching viewed language learning as “a way of joining a community” a more
appropriate approach would “help students to think about shuttling between
communities” (p. 210). He suggests that this new approach is more appropriate for EIL
because EIL speakers are likely to interact with L1 and other L2 speakers of many
different varieties of English. Ahmed appears to do this “shuttling” by differentiating
between different speech communities and adjusting his pragmatic behavior accordingly
to his understanding of norms characteristic of these communities. It is also a positive
feature of his pragmatic competence in that he shows awareness of the fact that negative
personality judgments might be attributed to the speakers who make pragmatic choices
deemed inappropriate by their interlocutors. In her discussion of pragmatic failure
Thomas (1983) submits that,
[p]ragmatic failure … is rarely recognized as such by non-linguists. If a non-
native speaker appears to speak fluently (i.e. is grammatically competent) a native
speaker is likely to attribute his/her apparent impoliteness or unfriendliness, not to
any linguistic deficiency, but to boorishness or ill-will. While grammatical error
93
may reveal a speaker to be a less than proficient language-user, pragmatic failure
reflects badly on him/her as a person. (p. 96-97, italics in the original)
Thus, adjusting his pragmatic behavior appears to be an effective choice on Ahmed’s part.
On the other hand, however, Ahmed did not explain what made him conclude that
his thanking strategy is seen by his interlocutors as the display of a weak personality and
helplessness; and thus, it is possible that he made a wrong conclusion from his
observations. He explained his understanding of why Americans English speakers seem
to look down on elaborate expressions of gratitude in the following way: “I feel like they
say - look at this fool - they just like consider you - a weakling and have no personality
and always like looking for help from people”. However, the difference in the presence or
absence of an expression of gratitude or the difference in the linguistic formulae (more vs.
less elaborate, emphatic, lengthy, etc.) may in fact indicate either the pragmalinguistic
level difference between American English and Saudi Arabian Arabic (encoding the
pragmatic force intended), or sociopragmatic level difference (what circumstances
require such an expression), or both (cf. Thomas, 1983, p. 105).
In other parts of the interview, Ahmed exhibited his awareness of
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic differences between these languages. In the
following excerpt, for example, he explained his understanding that the same behavior
might have different interpretations in different cultures and that in different
languages/cultures people might express the same intent in different ways:
I can’t say like for example American is like - he’s very rude or something and then the same time it would be very polite in his culture and everybody accept that except me - I would be a fool [aha okay] this is what I’m trying to say - every culture has its standards of politeness
94
Thus, Ahmed shows his understanding of the fact that the pragmatic behavior, and
specifically politeness, should be judged in context, and that it is important to be familiar
with the others’ pragmatic norms to fully understand their communicative intent.
However, such metapragmatic awareness might be difficult to apply to the interpretation
of the everyday interactions that one observes or engages in, as illustrated by the previous
example where Ahmed perceived that his American interlocutors were attributing
negative judgments to his excessive thanking, while in fact it might have been a non-
judgmental response strategy. For example, in their study on expressions of gratitude in
American English, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) observed that the person being thanked
“often indicated his or her intent to end the thanking episode by abruptly nominating a
change of topic” (p. 72). Such response does not mean, however, that the thanking
sequence itself, which might have been very lengthy and elaborate, was not welcome or
appropriate.
In addition, it appears that Ahmed has overgeneralized a particular pattern of
thanking behavior, most likely due to his limited interactions with American English
speakers. Ahmed found long and emphatic thanking expressions to be inappropriate in
interactions with American English speakers, but the data on naturally-occurring
expressions of gratitude suggest that it is not the case. As for the length and linguistic
content of expressions of gratitude, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) observed that the
native speakers of American English vary the expressions of thanks significantly
depending on the context, and that thanking strategies range “from short, formulaic
expressions that [appear] to be highly ritualized to intricate and lengthy interchanges
95
conveying deeply felt emotions” (p. 65). As for the re-occurrence of thanks, Eisenstein
and Bodman found that the native speakers of American English express gratitude not
only at the time of giving but also later and claimed that this “reentry of thanks is as
important as the original thanks” (1993, p. 73). In some cases it can be a note or a
telephone call, but this reentry can also occur at the next face-to-face meeting between
the giver and the receiver. Ahmed, however, while having noticed some differences in
how his American interlocutors handle thanking: “some Americans do the same thing as I
do - not all Americans like just ignore”, decided to adjust his thanking behavior to what
he perceived to be a more common American norm and made it his strategy of choice in
communication with Americans: “thanks with confidence - thanks I really appreciate that
and that’s it”.
The question of larger social context in which an interaction takes place also plays
a role in determining the appropriateness of pragmatic behaviors. However, according to
Ahmed, the expectations and norms of his interlocutor, as exhibited in his/her behavior,
take precedence. In his interview, Ahmed explained that after his graduation he intends to
return to Saudi Arabia to work at a multinational company where English is used as a
lingua franca. And to the question of which norms he would follow in an interaction with
an American co-worker, Ahmed responded that:
it depends … so what I’m trying to say - if this American still has his American customs [uhum] in Saudi Arabia - I would deal the same way with him [uhum] I will be very formal and thank you I appreciate it - have good day [uhum] but for example if he’s like Saudis - and he would - like if he did something big for me I would thank him all the day
96
Navigating the complexities of pragmatic norms of L2/C2 is a daunting task in
itself, and it becomes even more complex in case of EIL, where speakers might find
themselves engaged in communication with a speaker of whose L1/C1 and “third place”
they know little to nothing. One such example can be seen in Ahmed’s narrative
describing how he formed his understanding of the appropriate thanking behavior in
interactions with Chinese speakers of English:
R: … you have told me that you have some Chinese friends - how do you behave with them? like with Saudis? or like with Americans? or some other way?
Ahmed: well - I tried to do it the Saudi way [uhum] but I didn’t feel like - I remember I was talking to Chinese I said thank you very much I really appreciate it he just said uhuh and he walked [aha] he made me feel like if I am nothing so - I change my way - I just do that with Saudis … that’s why with Chinese I just say thank you and I walk I had many s- I dunno why I had many situations with Chinese What Ahmed described started as a promising “third place”-building. He began
with a probing behavior, in this case, employing his C1/L1 thanking strategy: “I tried to
do it the Saudi way … I said thank you very much I really appreciate it”. As was
suggested in the literature discussed in Chapter 2, in EIL L1 transfer can be a highly
useful strategy initiating the norm-negotiation process (cf. Sridhar, 1996). But when
Ahmed received a more reserved response: “he just said uhuh and he walked”, he
changed his strategy: “with Chinese I just say thank you and I walk”. Ahmed also
claimed to have had multiple encounters with Chinese speakers of English that gave him
the opportunity to observe their behavior and led him to regard the “just say thank you
and walk” behavior as appropriate. Thus, it seems that Ahmed is negotiating the norms
and adjusting his behavior to fit what he understands as appropriate behavior from the
97
perspective of his interlocutor. However, Ahmed made a crucial mistake, most likely, due
to the insufficient metapragmatic knowledge.
The speech event in question, thanking, involves two different speech acts:
thanking and response to thanking. The behavior of his Chinese interlocutor that Ahmed
observed and described in his narrative is a response to thanking, while the behavior that
he claimed to have adjusted is thanking itself. In other words, Ahmed observed that his
Chinese interlocutors were more reserved in their responses than he expected based on
his elaborate thanking strategy, but instead of adjusting his responses to thanking in
interactions with Chinese, Ahmed adjusted his thanking strategy. As the study by
Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) illustrated, “the receiver [might continue] to thank the
giver using a variety of strategies until the giver [indicates] that enough had been said.
The giver [has] often indicated his or her intent to end the thanking episode by abruptly
nominating a change of topic” (p. 72). While Eisenstein and Bodman referred to the
American English norm and cautioned that there exists a significant cultural variation in
language values and customs that can contribute to potential misunderstanding (1993, p.
73), the absence of an elaborate response to thanking by itself is not evidence for the
dispreference of profound and elaborate expressions of gratitude. However, Ahmed
conflated the two speech acts, and thus it is possible that he chose the wrong thanking
strategy in his interactions with Chinese speakers despite all his efforts at negotiating the
norm pertaining to thanking behavior.
Some interview excerpts discussed above might imply that Ahmed’s pragmatic
competence is in fact static, not dynamic, and that he has fixed categories and notions of
98
appropriateness rather than negotiates them in interactions. In another interview excerpt,
Ahmed initially hesitated in his response but then expressed what appears to be a pre-
established idea of what would constitute appropriate behavior with a (in this case
hypothetical) German speaker of English, which seems to demonstrate the lack of
willingness to negotiate the pragmatic norms in the way he did with his Chinese
interlocutors:
R: ... so what would be about some other person from some other culture - like say you meet a person from - Germany - what would you do - how would you behave? …
Ahmed: uhm I dunno know - I would say thank you I I- like Americans actually [uhum] not like Saudis - Saudis are as I told you - I just would deal with that with Saudis not all Saudis - Saudis - who did me something big In this excerpt it also appears that Ahmed has established for himself the
distinction: Saudis vs. others, and has ascribed different appropriate thanking strategies to
each of these categories of interlocutors. While Ahmed would certainly be not the only
EIL speaker who draws such distinction between the cultural group to which he belongs
and all others15, it is also possible that it is the limitations of the data collection
techniques used in this study that are giving the impression that Ahmed’s behaviors,
notions and categorizations are pre-established and static.
One piece of evidence that suggests that Ahmed’s patterns of pragmatic behavior
might not be as stable and static as some of his interview responses imply is the
discrepancy observed in Ahmed’s responses. For example, in the beginning of the
discussion of his thanking behavior, Ahmed unequivocally stated that he indeed would
15 For example, another study participant, a 21-year-old female from China, expressed this distinction in the following way: “in my mind uhh - there are two group of people - Chinese and not Chinese”.
99
thank the person who would have helped him take notes in class multiple times, even
though it was made clear in the text of that CI that the person is not Saudi:
I would really thank him too many times until he says oh man shut the fuck up - I can’t - okay I know you’re welcome just go [uhum] I would thank him too many times
Later, however, he claimed that he would only behave this way with other Saudis:
I change my way - I just do that with Saudis even though Saudis sometimes tell me we are your friends you don’t have to thank us all the time but I’m talking about Saudis who are not my friends
And furthermore, only in specific situations:
I just would deal with that with Saudis not all Saudis - Saudis - who did me something big
On the other hand, Ahmed claimed that he would behave this way with a non-Saudi if
that person typically followed Saudi Arabian norms:
if this American still has his American customs [uhum] in Saudi Arabia - I would deal the same way with him [uhum] I will be very formal and thank you I appreciate it - have good day [uhum] but for example if he’s like Saudis - and he would - like if he did something big for me I would thank him all the day Thus, it becomes impossible to determine in advance what strategy Ahmed would
use in a given real-life situation. As Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) submit in their
discussion of qualitative interviews as a research method:
the subject may also give apparently contradictory statements during an interview
… [the] task of the interviewer is to clarify, as far as possible, whether the
ambiguities and contradictory statements are due to a failure of communication in
the interview situation, or whether they reflect genuine inconsistencies,
ambivalence, and contradictions in an interviewee’s life situation. The
100
contradictions of interviewees need not merely be due to faulty communication in
the interview, nor to the interviewee’s personality, but may be adequate
reflections of objective contradictions in the world in which they live. (p. 31)
It should be kept in mind that the interviews in this study were conducted in the
participants’ L2, so despite the fact that all of them were proficient speakers of English,
there might have been gaps in their linguistic competence that might have affected their
responses to the interview questions. However, the discrepancy in Ahmed’s answers does
not seem to imply that he has difficulty expressing his ideas, or is not telling the truth, or
that his memory is failing him, rather it appears to confirm that his pragmatic competence
is dynamic, perhaps more so than he is consciously aware. In this light, Ahmed’s initial
hesitation in the excerpt above: “uhm I dunno know”, gains more significance and
perhaps gives a more realistic representation of the reality of his pragmatic competence
than his following definitive statement: “I would say thank you … like [to] Americans”.
The importance of specific contextual factors in the pragmatic decision-making
process is also evidenced in Ahmed’s statements of “it depends”, abundant in the
interview data, and detailed narratives of specific speech events to illustrate how
contextual factors affect his choice of pragmatic behaviors and politeness strategies.
Patricia
Patricia is an 18-year-old student from Central America16, a native speaker of
Spanish, who had been in the US for about 3 months as a university student at the time of
16 The specific country was concealed to protect the participant’s identity.
101
the study. She considers her English language proficiency to be at an intermediate level,
even though she had been studying English in her home country for about 13 years before
coming to the US.
As has been discussed in the previous sections, EIL speakers make their own
choices of what to incorporate into their “third places” and what to leave behind, be it a
C1/L1 or C2/L2 pragmatic norm. In Patricia’s interview she illustrated the impact of one
of the factors that determine whether a certain norm will be incorporated into one’s “third
place”, namely, the compatibility of this new norm with one’s system of values and
beliefs. Patricia expressed reluctance to follow the norms that she observes in American
English speakers’ behavior:
R: … do you think it’s similar between how students talk to teachers in X17 and how students talk to teachers in the United Sta[tes?
Patricia: [it is simi- -- I think that in my math class here it’s quite a different - they talk with teacher like you and you [aha] with you and you - kind of friends - some students make that [aha] but in X we - we don’t do that - it’s kind of awkward because it’s ir- irrespectful …
R: when you notice these kind of differences - how do you behave? do you behave how you are used [to
Patricia: [yes I still behave like I w- I was in X
R: do you think you need to change? do you think it’s important to behave like native speakers behave to each other? …
Patricia: I think I will use my way to - to express myself [uhum] I* comfortable with my - my attitude and how I express myself - I think it is fine how I do it In this excerpt Patricia explained that the informal style that her classmates,
American English speakers, use in communication with their teacher gives her the
impression of disrespect, which contradicts her cultural norms, and thus she is unwilling
17 The name of the country was concealed to protect the participant’s identity.
102
to adopt this style. She also explained that the relationship between the teacher and the
student, in her system of beliefs, is not close enough for informal style. Unfortunately,
Patricia did not illustrate her claim with any specific examples of how other students talk
to the teacher in her class or how she would talk to her teacher; and thus, we cannot see to
what extent her style diverges from that of her classmates and whether her choice to hold
on to her L1/C1 norm is appropriate in this context.
On the one hand, while flouting some pragmatic norms might lead to negative
consequences, it is unlikely that in an interaction between her and her teacher Patricia’s
communicative style, more formal than that of other students, would lead to negative
judgments. However, to deliberately flout pragmatic norms, one has to have sufficient
metapragmatic awareness. There is no single “rule of thumb” when it comes to
appropriate behavior in a particular context, and, for example, erring on the side of
formality is not advisable in all circumstances as a more formal style might be seen as the
sign of unfriendliness, arrogance or unwillingness to cooperate.
Similarly to Ahmed’s data, Patricia’s interview data are also full of contradictions.
For example, the excerpt above illustrates Patricia’s awareness of differences in
communicative styles in interactions between students and teachers in the US and her
home country. Moreover, she labeled the informal style of the students in the US as
“irrespectful” and claimed that, “in [my home country] we - we don’t do that”. However,
on other occasions she stated that there are no differences in how politeness and respect
are conveyed in the US and her home country:
R: so did you notice any difference between how people are being polite - like in X when they are speaking in Spanish and here when they are speaking in English?
103
like for example you just mentioned that when you are speaking to a person who is older you are being more polite you’re showing more respect - so did you notice any differences?…
Patricia: I think it is the same [the same?] all young people show respect to older people in every country ** I don’t find a difference The explanation for this contradiction might be similar to the one in Ahmed’s
case. However, in Patricia’s interview there are also instances of misunderstanding of the
interviewer’s questions and struggles to find an English word or expression, so it is
possible that gaps in Patricia’s linguistic competence might have contributed to the
contradictions in her answers.
Another possible explanation for this contradiction is Kvale and Brinkmann’s
(2009) claim that “[i]n the course of an interview, the subjects can change their
descriptions of, and attitudes toward, a theme. The subjects may themselves discover new
aspects of the themes they are describing, and suddenly see relations that they had not
been aware of earlier” (p. 31). On some occasions in the present study, participants
explicitly stated that an interview question addressed something they had not thought
about before, and thus it is inevitable that emerging reflections would have internal
inconsistencies and contradictions.
In Patricia’s interview, the evidence of the processes described by Kvale and
Brinkmann (2009) can be seen, for example, in the first interview excerpt when she
changed her answer about teacher-student interactions in mid-utterance: “it is simi- -- I
think that in my math class here it’s quite a different”. It appears that at first she intended
to claim that there are no differences between these interactions in the US and her home
country, but a specific example that came to mind made her change her statement. As
104
Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) suggest, “[t]he questioning can … instigate processes of
reflection where the meanings of themes described by the subjects are no longer the same
after the interview. An interview may be a learning process for the interviewee” (p. 31). It
is possible that the experience of participating in this study became a learning experience
for Patricia by making her reflect on her experiences of using English, and thus has
contributed to her “third place”.
In addition, similarly to Ahmed, Patricia often prefaced her responses to interview
questions with “it depends” statements, illustrating the importance of specific contextual
elements in her pragmatic decision-making process. However, perhaps due to linguistic
difficulties, she often limited her answers to the interview questions to “yes” or “no”, and
so the lack of elaboration does not allow for deeper insights into the way that contextual
factors affect her choice of pragmatic behaviors and politeness strategies.
Yanbo
Yanbo is a 21-year-old Chinese male, a native speaker of Mandarin, who had
been in the US for about 3 months as a university student and one additional month in a
summer language camp at the time of the study. Like Patricia, he assesses his English
language proficiency as intermediate, even though he had been studying English in China
for about 15 years.
Yanbo exhibits at the same time a high level of awareness of cultural differences
and their impact on one’s pragmatic behavior and a strong orientation toward acquiring
the pragmatic norms of American English.
105
In his response to CI 1 “Peer Review” (see Appendix B), Yanbo commented on
his partner’s actions in the following way:
Without knowing my partner’s culture custom, I couldn’t determine whether he’s been polite or impolite, tried hard or not. Yanbo exhibits the same metapragmatic awareness as does Ahmed, in that Yanbo
believes that the knowledge of the others’ pragmatic norms is necessary to fully
understand their communicative intent, and also that cultural differences affect speakers’
pragmatic norms and behaviors. Yanbo further confirmed this understanding in the
discussion of CI 1 during the interview, where he explained his choice of pragmatic
behavior strategies as follows:
R: so you think that people who come from different cultures are being polite in different ways?
Yanbo: yes
R: when you are talking to different people - are you trying to be polite to them?
Yanbo: yes - of course (laughter) usually I try to be polite to everybody
R: so then are you being polite in different ways to those different people if you think that they have a different understanding of what’s polite and what’s not?
Yanbo: how do I behave? [yeah] for mostly- mostly cause I don’t know their culture so - so I have to behave - I’ll try to behave polite in American ways cause I speak in English [okay] cause I speak English - unless I know their culture - and know their behavior on this
R: so if you knew their culture and knew their behavior you would change your way of being polite?
Yanbo: maybe I will act polite in their ways - in their culture In this excerpt Yanbo revealed preference for American English pragmatic norms.
However, unlike Ahmed, who justified his choice of certain norms of American English
from a more personal perspective, Yanbo exhibits a more social-norm oriented approach.
The discussion preceding this excerpt set the US as the larger social context, so Yanbo’s
106
answer may also be interpreted as his belief that it is the larger social context that
determines the appropriate behaviors rather than personal preferences: “I’ll try to behave
polite in American ways cause I speak in English [in the US]”. However, Yanbo also left
a possibility of adjusting his pragmatic behavior to match his interlocutors’ behaviors if
they are different from those of American English speakers: “maybe I will act polite in
their ways - in their culture”. Earlier in his interview, Yanbo said that so far he had had
little opportunity to interact with other L2 English speakers, so his knowledge of their
pragmatic norms is very limited, and therefore he could not be sure whether he would
adjust his behavior or not. It is not unreasonable to suggest that other factors such as the
compatibility of the systems of values and beliefs, as in Patricia’s case, and other
preferences of a more personal nature, as in Ahmed’s case, might later take precedence
for Yanbo in his pragmatic/politeness choices in those interactions.
Yanbo’s orientation toward the norms of American English appears to be affected
not only by the fact that he was residing in the US at the time of the study, that is, by the
immediate context of his interactions, but also by his goals for the future, as he wishes to
remain in the US after graduating. Yanbo is making a conscious effort to learn the norms
of American English. In his interview, he claimed that while in his English language
classes in China he did not learn much about these norms, he had been making an effort
to learn from movies, computer games, and other sources of pragmatic knowledge
produced by American English speakers: “anything that is made - made by native
Americans [uhum] tho- those medias that speaks Americans not- not something like
Chinese Americans”. Yanbo also claimed that after arriving in the US, he has been
107
learning primarily from observations of people’s behaviors, but at this point in time he
considers his knowledge of American English pragmatic/politeness norms to be
incomplete, and he claimed that he is “still learning”.
Furthermore, in his interview Yanbo said that the only occasion on which he
deliberately resorts to the Chinese pragmatic norms is in the situations when he does not
know the appropriate American English norm: “I would try to d- do it exactly the same
way - as Americans [okay] although sometimes I don’t know how they do it”. In these
latter cases, Yanbo follows the Chinese notion of politeness and Chinese pragmatic
norms, as he explained in the following excerpt, describing how he would make a polite
request:
R: … if you wanted to ask a friend to help you with your essay - how would you ask - what would you say?
Yanbo: let me first ask- say - are you free now? - and my - if the answer is free and my second asking may be just very directly - * my essay here - can you please help me - comment on it?
R: would you be trying to be polite in that situation?
Yanbo: at least uh that- at least in Chinese culture that is for the first question - the first question are you free now that’s- that’s the way Chinese * does it
R: do you think they do the same in English? have you noticed?
Yanbo: I didn’t notice- I didn’t notice [okay] I don’t really know
R: but you would do that- you would say that thinking that you’re being polite right? you would do that because you think it’s polite?
Yanbo: (nods) cause that’s the only way I know Yanbo also claimed that in interactions in the US, with American English
speakers, he follows the norms of American English:
R: so when you say from my perspective - do you think it’s because of how you were brought up in China or it’s because of what you have learned about English from all the movies and computer games? … you just said - from my perspective
108
this is polite - so my question is - how did you form that perspective? your own understanding of politeness - where does it come from?
Yanbo: from both [both] and- and I would label- label them differently -- one from- one from where I grew up [uhum] and one from from the American ways - I will separate them [uhum] but both will come- come to (trails off) [okay] … so I mean- I mean [uhum] in China I will not use ways Americans use [uhum] and in American- in America I will try not to use the ways I do in China Thus, Yanbo envisions the “third place” of his pragmatic competence as the one
which would allow him to “shuttle” easily from one set of norms to another, although he
appears to conceptualize the ideal pragmatic competence not as a repertoire that he would
draw upon depending on the context, but rather as two separate, compartmentalized sets
of norms and corresponding behaviors. However, as has been mentioned earlier, Yanbo’s
understanding might change as his “third place” develops through interactions with
American English and other English speakers and as he gains more experience of
interacting in a variety of contexts.
Mei
Mei is a 19-year-old female from China, a native speaker of Mandarin. She had
been studying English in China for about 8 years and had been in the United States as a
university student for about 2 years at the time of the study.
Unlike Yanbo, Mei had both more time to learn about the pragmatic norms of
American English and more opportunities to interact with other EIL speakers, and her
“third place” shows more openness for negotiating and mixing norms as well as for
“shuttling” between different speech communities. In her interview, she suggested that
two years in the US had been enough time for her to gain some knowledge of the US
109
cultural norms and integrate them into her “third place”: “maybe I stay here for like
almost two years so like - I kind of think like - I don’t know - kind of accept the p- like
American culture”. However, other parts of the interview show that Mei still identifies
herself as Chinese.
In her response to CI 6 “Saturday Shift” (see Appendix B), Mei wrote the
following:
1. if she is my good friend, I think I would. 2. if not, I may tell her “I do not really have time on Saturday, and I have to go shopping for some food” kind of excuse. During the interview, she explained her choice of strategy to decline the request
as a preference for Chinese pragmatic norms:
Mei: … if I I don’t like the person I may like give them something- some excuse I - I I don’t think I will tell her directly cause it’s not very good (laughter)
R: why is it not good?
…
Mei: I think it’s - I think it’s different American than China- Chinese culture
R: what is the difference?
Mei: I think American people say all- most - most of all the things directly [uhum] but Chinese people we’re kind of like - not very directly find some like uhh softer way to say that [uhum] but not too directly
R: uhum and why is that?
Mei: I don’t know I think the culture I grew up it’s like this so - our thoughts and our opinion is - that -- yeah [uhum] cause when I come here I think American people say all things so directly but not a- Chinese people won’t say that In this excerpt Mei identified herself with “Chinese people” through her use of
pronouns “we” and “our”; and thus, her choice of strategy in this situation seems to be
determined by her L1/C1 pragmatic norms. Mei’s explanation in this excerpt also implies
a general preference for indirectness in pragmatic behavior as a Chinese norm. However,
110
during the interview Mei also claimed that she does not necessarily evaluate directness
negatively: “I like the way Ch- the way American people say it [uhum] I like people say
directly [okay] yeah”, and suggested that in real-life interactions she might “shuttle”
between different levels of directness, depending on the preference of the speech
community to which her interlocutor belongs:
R: so if you notice this difference [uhum] between how Americans speak and how Chinese speak [uhum] when you’re speaking in English [uhum] - do you say things like Americans say things or do you say things like Chinese say things?
Mei: oh it’s hard (laughter) ** think [yeah] -- I think it’s also depending on what people I’m talking about if I talk with Chinese people [uhum] I won’t say so directly [uhum] like say some words but for American people - now I’m learning like to begin involved in American culture and learning how American people do those things and they think about those things and- cause uhm cause - I spent a lot of time with my American friends [uhum] and - our thoughts is totally different so I’m trying to understand the words they think about
R: so how about somebody who is neither Chinese nor American [uhum] but comes from a different culture? would you be direct? would you be indirect? [uh] I mean if you were talking in English with that person?
Mei: (long pause) I had a Korean roommates before [aha] and she is very directly so I talk with her very directly [uhum] and I told her what I’m thinking about about all the stuff [uhum] I’m not sure about other people [uhum] cause - uhm - cause I don’t know about their culture and I don’t want to be - show rude to them like [aha] yeah - I think it’s depending on the person cause uh - cause for my Korean roommate she’s very directly so [uhum] I talk with her very directly that’s the matter cause we have a good friendship [uhum] so it won’t be hurts- hurt our like - hurts us [uhum] if we s- if both of us say all things very directly [uhum] yeah but it’s totally different - different kind - different person ** so I dunno Similarly to Ahmed and Yanbo, Mei does not bring pre-established ideas of
appropriateness into interactions with people with whose culture and communicative
style she is not familiar. In communication with her Korean roommate, Mei adjusted her
pragmatic behavior, specifically, the level of directness, to match her roommate’s, which
resulted in successful interactions and did not cause any problems for their relationship.
111
However, she also claimed that she would not know how to behave appropriately if she
did not know her interlocutors’ cultural norms. Thus Mei, similarly to Ahmed, appears
not to have pre-established categories of interlocutors with appropriate pragmatic
behaviors ascribed to each category. On the one hand, it can be a positive aspect of her
pragmatic competence, an indication of openness, which is a pre-requisite for the
negotiation of norms; but on the other hand, it appears that it is more likely to be a result
of a lack of experience and knowledge of what to do in such situations rather than an
indication of Mei’s metapragmatic awareness.
Apart from providing the evidence of successful “shuttling”, this excerpt
illustrates the dynamics of Mei’s notions of politeness. Her statement: “I had a Korean
roommates before - and she is very directly so I talk with her very directly - and I told her
what I’m thinking about about all the stuff - I’m not sure about other people - cause -
uhm - cause I don’t know about their culture and I don’t want to be - show rude to them”
implies that Mei considers directness to be rude in some cultures. However, when she and
her roommate were direct to each other, Mei was comfortable with that and did not see
this behavior as rude, hurtful or damaging for the relationship. Thus, it appears that her
evaluations of politeness, while drawing most strongly on Chinese notions acquired
through her L1/C1 socialization: “it’s like - it’s hard to describe cause it’s - inside like
inside the * - just we think it’s polite but maybe not other people don’t think of that
[uhum] I think it’s the way of -- learning when we grow up”, have changed due to her
interactions with people whose notions, evaluations, and behaviors (in other words, their
112
“politeness-as-practice” (Eelen, 2001)) differed from her own, and thus have affected her
own politeness-as-practice.
Finally, similar to other participants, Mei’s interview responses are full of
apparent contradictions. For example, in one excerpt quoted above, she expressed
preference for indirectness in some circumstances: “I don’t think I will tell her directly
cause it’s not very good”, while in other excerpts she claimed to have a positive attitude
toward directness: “I like people say [things] directly”. But in Mei’s case, as well as in
others’, this also appears to be a reflection of the complexities, inconsistencies, and
ambivalence of the world in which she lives rather than the inability to express her ideas,
personality faults or communication problems (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009, p. 31).
Preference for directness as well as the very understanding of what is direct or indirect
might be context-dependent.
Maria
Maria is a 20-year-old student from East Africa18, a speaker of Kalenjin and
Swahili. She had been in the US for about 3 months at the time of the study, and while
she had been studying English in her home country for about 6 years, she self-identifies
her English proficiency as intermediate.
Similar to other participants, Maria claimed that she did not have much
experience interacting with other L2 speakers of English, and even in her English
18 The specific country was concealed to protect the participant’s identity.
113
Composition class she had few opportunities for interaction with her classmates, as she
explained in her interview:
for the non-native speakers I’ve not been- been - associated with them - like some in my class [uhum] and - most of them don’t talk much so - I don’t know much about them
Thus, her “third place” was constructed primarily through the interactions with L1
speakers of English in addition to her educational experiences, and unlike most other
participants in this study, Maria identified the communicative style of L1 English
speakers as less direct than that of the people in her home country:
especially the native speakers they are soo indirect - like they are so - I can call it polite [uhum] yeah - and - not r- in my country - because I also didn’t go like out of town - just within - you know - but just used to people - yeah which is not bad - but here - it’s yeah - someone says please and you know and - people kind of - try - kind of respect you - because I feel when you are so polite you are so indirect you respect that person This excerpt also illustrates that, for Maria, there is a direct correlation between
indirectness and politeness, which she interprets as an indication of respect. Because of
such positive interpretation of indirectness, Maria claims to be comfortable adjusting her
own communicative behavior, although she acknowledged that initially she had
experienced some difficulties with it:
in the beginning it was still difficult like because I was here and -- like at home I would say -- to my sister - give me that cup -- but - here I would say oh H19 could you please - give me that cup? [aha] because she also does like that - and I feel like oh that’s the best way being * [uhum] and I feel okay- I feel really good you know - I don’t feel offended when - they talk like that [aha] and I talk like that to them [uhum] things look okay
19 The name (first, female) has been removed.
114
In this excerpt, where Maria gave a hypothetical example of how she would make
a request to her American roommate, she said that she “does not feel offended” by a more
indirect style that her roommates use in interactions with her. In another excerpt, Maria
suggested an even more positive orientation toward indirectness, interpreting it as a sign
of warmth of the relationship:
I just feel like - according to me I feel like being- being indirect is a positive - thing positive [uhum] yeah you can be more indire- like direct but yeah it’s still positive - but uhh - it’s not that warm you know - you’ll just be like - cruel (laughter) or something - I don’t know if I would use that - with my roommates because they’ll be like okay (doubtful intonation) As for interactions with other L2 English speakers, Maria claims that she typically
adopts a more indirect style because she considers it “safer” than a more direct style. On
several occasions she claimed that she tries to be indirect with her classmates in the
English Composition class:
because we come from different backgrounds you know - and you n- never know how someone will react - and the best way is to be polite [aha] to be general She also suggested that using indirectness is the primary strategy she would adopt
in any other interaction with a person with whose culture she is not familiar:
I don’t know so much about - culture [aha] yeah so - I’m kind of sensitive to that - kind of * suggest generally be polite [uhum] in speech and everything Thus, it appears that Maria prefers the same strategy as Mei, but while the
preference for indirectness in Mei’s case is largely attributed to her L1/C1, as she
suggests that Americans are more direct than Chinese, in Maria’s case the preference for
indirectness seems to contradict her L1/C1 norms. Although Maria did not make cultural
generalizations about the culture of her home country as being more direct and suggested
115
that her perception of the communicative style that she and others around her were using
in her home country might be specific to her home town, she did claim that the behavior
that she observes in the US is more indirect than the behavior she is used to.
Interestingly, Maria explained that she had learned about the pragmalinguistic
differences between indirectness and directness in her English language classes in her
home country, but had had little introduction to sociopragmatic dimension of this
distinction. When asked whether she had learned about the contexts of use of directness
and indirectness, Maria responded that her teachers had not sufficiently introduced the
sociopragmatic level:
they didn’t actually say like - in the United States - you know they’d give us exams [uhum] quizzes asking okay - differentiate between direct and indirect - and you would feel like - oh direct- indirect is so positive [aha] you know so that’s - I dunn- I dunno it’s natural automatic like - I just feel like - according to me I feel like being being indirect is a positive - thing positive The lack of the awareness of sociopragmatic differences is illustrated in Maria’s
claim that she would use the same request strategy and the same utterance to request help
with her essay from her classmate, roommate and teacher:
I think I would just say the same [the same?] the same - framing the same sentence - like - could you please if you have some time today or any time - could you please check on my paper? [uhum] just describe what I want - you know [aha] Maria explained that the “description” of what exactly she wants the reviewer to
pay attention to and comment on would be different because her teacher and classmate
are likely to be more familiar with the specifics of the assignment, but the actual request
strategy would be the same for any of these addressees.
116
On the other hand, Maria’s pragmalinguistic knowledge also seems to be
problematic. For example, in her written response to CI 1 “Peer Review” (see Appendix
B), she wrote:
I would tell him “Maybe you still have to analyze more critically, because I feel like there is still more I have to do. This time ensure that the concept is right, grammar is good and sentences are short but clear.” I would say this to him to ensure that he knows and understands all what the professor wants us to write in our essays. Maria’s request in the first utterance, while being prefaced with a downtoner
“maybe” as an internal modifier to downtone its impositive force (Trosborg, 1994, p.
212) and followed with a supportive reason “because I feel like there is still more I have
to do” as an external modifier (Trosborg, 1994, p. 218), is still very direct. Maria
employed one of the more direct strategies to perform her request, a statement of
obligation: “you still have to analyze more critically”, which makes her utterance an
order, although in its weaker form (Trosborg, 1994, p. 202). Maria’s following utterance
is an even more direct request strategy. “This time ensure that the concept is right,
grammar is good and sentences are short but clear” is an imperative, and moreover, it is
not modified either externally or internally, which makes it particularly authoritative
(Trosborg, 1994, p. 204).
During the interview, Maria added that she also might request more feedback
from her partner in less direct ways, such as with questions: “I would ask like okay what
do you think about my essay?” The discrepancy between Maria’s written responses and
examples provided during the interview might be attributed to the specifics of the written
questionnaire as the data collection instrument, in that the responses to written
117
questionnaires do not represent natural speech with respect to many characteristics,
including specific speech act realization strategies (cf. Kasper, 1999). However, during
the interview Maria confirmed that she would use the utterances she listed in her written
response. As Kasper (1999) suggests, despite some limitations of written questionnaire
responses, in general, they do “indicate what strategic and linguistic options are
consonant with pragmatic norms [of the respondent]” (p. 84). Thus, it appears that
although in real-life interactions Maria might use a wider range of request strategies than
her written responses imply, including less direct ones, she does not view her written
responses as inappropriate.
These choices of direct strategies in Maria’s written response appear to contradict
her claims that she tries to be indirect and considers directness to be impolite. Thus, the
fact that she considers directness to be impolite and yet does not consider highly direct
request strategies to be impolite might suggest a pragmalinguistic failure, that is, the
failure to recognize directness in linguistic forms. This is somewhat surprising in light of
Maria’s claims that in her English language classes she had been explicitly taught to
differentiate between direct and indirect forms: “they’d give us exams [uhum] quizzes
asking okay - differentiate between direct and indirect”. Unfortunately, without more
detailed information on Maria’s experience with these kinds of pedagogical activities, it
is not possible to tell whether they have contributed positively or negatively to the
development of her pragmatic competence. That is, it is possible that without such
activities Maria’s pragmatic competence in English would have been even more
problematic, but it is also possible that such activities have resulted in misunderstanding
118
and confusion. However, it is apparent that the current state of Maria’s pragmatic
competence has some gaps that might have a negative effect on communicative outcomes
of her interactions.
Summary
In the present study all participants revealed, in one way or another, the hybrid
and dynamic nature of their pragmatic competence and politeness norms, captured in the
metaphor of the “third place”. Kramsch (1993) submits that:
At the intersection of multiple native and target cultures, the major task of
language learners is to define for themselves what this ‘third place’ that they have
engaged in seeking will look like, whether they are conscious of it or not. Nobody,
least of all the teacher, can tell them where that very personal place is; for each
learner it will be differently located, and will make different sense at different
times. (p. 257)
As the data illustrate, L2 speakers of English do indeed construct their very own
“third places”, and on many occasions they appear to be unconscious of both the hybrid
nature of their pragmatic competence in English and the processes through which they
have built these “third places”. However, some participants in this study have exhibited
difficulties in the construction of their “third places”. In some cases, they are aware of
these difficulties, and in others, they are completely oblivious. One example of the latter
can be seen in the case of Ahmed. Despite his quite well-developed intercultural
awareness, evidenced in many of the narratives he shared during the interview, on some
119
occasions he exhibits the lack of metapragmatic knowledge that leads him to draw the
wrong conclusions from his observations of others’ behavior and to develop his own
behavioral strategies based on these wrongful conclusions.
It has been suggested that hybridity, flexibility of pragmatic norms and the ability
to “shuttle”, in Canagarajah’s (2006) terms, between different speech communities are
critically important for successful communication in EIL. However, the ability to
“shuttle” requires not only a broad communicative repertoire but also a solid basis of
critical awareness, which would allow the speakers to adjust their communicative
behavior not only according to their own views of communicative norms, but also taking
into account their interlocutors’ expectations and behaviors, based on what the speakers
know about their interlocutors or observe in interaction.
L2 English speakers in this study exhibited this ability to “shuttle”, but they did
not appear to be aware of its full potential; rather, their “shuttling” seems to be a by-
product of their trial-and-error process, and as such, may result in misunderstanding,
pragmatic failure, and cultural stereotypes. In addition, “shuttling” does not imply having
separate sets of norms for different speech communities. Despite some participants’
expectations that becoming fully competent in English would allow them to switch
between two separate sets of norms, it might not be an attainable or even a desirable goal,
especially in the case of EIL. As some studies suggest, hybridity might be a natural and
unavoidable characteristic of competence of any multilingual speaker, so that in either
language their pragmatic behavior would differ from the behavior of monolingual
speakers of that language (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1990, as cited in House 2003b). Some
120
scholars also suggest that hybridity is not only a natural but a desirable characteristic of
an EIL speaker’s communicative style that could lead to more successful interactions in
intercultural encounters (e.g., House, 2003a).
Finally, the data illustrate that the hybridity of the participants’ pragmatic
competence and concepts of politeness itself is dynamic, not only in the sense that it is
ever-changing as one gains higher levels of proficiency, engages in communication with
diverse interlocutors and so on, but also in the sense that it allows one to choose different
communicative styles and norms from his/her repertoire to use in a particular
communicative context.
121
CHAPTER 5: FACEWORK AND POLITENESS IN EIL INTERACTIONS
Introduction
To provide a “thick description” of facework (Geertz, 1973), the analysis in this
chapter will be limited to the analysis of one CI and corresponding interview excerpts.
Specifically, this chapter will provide a detailed analysis of the participants’ responses
pertaining to CI 1 “Peer Review”. There are several reasons for choosing this CI over all
others:
• the communicative situation presented in this item is an intercultural “rich point”
(Agar, 1994);
• the scenario presented in this item is highly realistic, as all participants have had
an experience of interacting with other L2 English speakers during peer reviews
in their ESL Composition classes, and many participants claimed in their
responses that they had experienced identical or similar situations, thus increasing
the authenticity and reliability of their responses;
• the situation in this CI presents rich opportunities for a range of facework
strategies, including but not limited to those pertaining to face-threat;
• the results of the analysis of this item can have the most useful pedagogical
implications (for English language teachers in general and for
writing/composition teachers in particular).
The chapter will begin with an introduction of peer review as a pedagogical
activity and a site of facework. Then, it will introduce the strategy of “opting out” and
explore how the participants in this study utilized this strategy in their responses to CI 1
122
“Peer Review”. Next, other facework strategies will be analyzed. The chapter will
conclude with a summary of the analysis.
Peer Review in Teaching ESL Writing
Peer review, also known in teaching writing as peer feedback, peer response, or
peer editing, is defined by Liu and Hansen (2002) as “the use of learners as sources of
information and interactants for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and
responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in
commenting on and critiquing each other’s drafts in both written and oral formats in the
process of writing” (p. 1). There are many potential cognitive, social, linguistic, and
practical benefits of this activity, but some potential constraints exist as well (Liu &
Hansen, 2002, p. 8-11). Studies have found that multiple factors affect students’
experiences during peer review, thus affecting their attitudes toward it and its effects.
Usually, the factors that are addressed in the studies include linguistic and sociocultural
backgrounds of the students, their proficiency levels, the task, the genre, and the
format/mode of reviewing (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p. 19).
Peer reviews in multicultural ESL writing classrooms are complex situations.
Many ESL students who received schooling in their home countries did not have any
previous experience with peer reviews, and while the process itself might be well
explained by the teacher, some might still struggle with the notion that the authority
reserved for the teachers is now delegated to their peers. Academic writing presents its
own challenges, demanding not only more sophisticated language than these students
123
might possess but also a formal L2 rhetorical schemata, the lack of which might result in
inappropriate expectations about the content and the structure of their own and their
peers’ essays (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p. 11). Moreover, as intercultural encounters, peer
reviews are laden with all the complexities discussed in the previous chapters. Thus,
multicultural ESL writing classrooms become intercultural “rich points”, situations that
“strike [one] with their difficulty, their complexity, their inability to fit into the resources
[one uses] to make sense out of the world” (Agar, 1994, p. 230). As Agar (1994) argues,
to understand such a “rich point”, one needs to build a new frame for interpretation, and
to do that, “you have to realize that your old frames, ones that you may not have known
you had, are only one of a number of possibilities, an arbitrary rather than a “natural”
way of seeing, thinking, and acting. You have to become aware of and distance yourself
from an identity that shapes who it is that you always thought you were” (p. 232). Thus,
understanding a “rich point” requires critical cultural awareness.
At the University of Arizona, English Composition is a required course which is
taught as a two-semester sequence, the first course being English 101 and the second
being English 102, with corresponding ESL equivalents English 107 and English 108. In
these classes, peer reviews are used on a regular basis, although the frequency of peer
review sessions and specific ways of conducting peer reviews, of which there are many,
are at the discretion of individual instructors. All participants in this study were recruited
from these ESL Composition classes (see Chapter 3), and thus are familiar with this
activity.
124
The specific scenario for CI 1 “Peer Review” (see Appendix B) was developed on
the basis of a situation that had been informally narrated to the researcher on several
occasions by her own students; and therefore represents not only a realistic but also a
relatively typical scenario.
Peer Review as a Site of Facework
The data analysis in this chapter is based primarily on the concepts of face and
facework as originally introduced by Goffman (e.g., 1967) and complemented with some
more recent approaches in the study of face and facework (see Chapter 2). The following
section will address the applications of face and facework as theoretical frameworks to
the analysis of participants’ pragmatic behaviors and expectations in peer reviews.
The very definition of peer review as a pedagogical activity emphasizes that
students are expected to critique each other’s drafts (cf. Liu & Hansen, 2002, p. 1). As
such, this activity is an example of an “incident”, that is, an activity in which face might
be threatened (Goffman, 1967).
In peer review, facework might take very complex forms. Multiple goals and face
concerns might interact and clash, and it might be difficult to determine which action
would cause face loss. As Goffman (1967) explains, “[a] person may be said to be in
wrong face when information is brought forth in some way about his [her] social worth
which cannot be integrated, even with effort, into the line that is being sustained for him
[her]” (p. 8, italics in original). But what will put one in “wrong face”? What is the line
that is being sustained, for example, for the reviewer? On the one hand, peer review as a
125
pedagogical activity ascribes to the reviewer the role of an expert and the responsibility to
help the other, so if that is the line sustained for him/her, then not providing critical
feedback would put the reviewer in “wrong face”. On the other hand, the reviewer is still
a peer, classmate, or even a friend of the other, so if that is the line sustained for him/her,
then it will be providing critical feedback that will put the reviewer in “wrong face”. So
understanding what line is being sustained for an individual in a peer review situation
might be quite a challenge in itself.
Goffman (1967) underscores that an important characteristic of facework is that
the face-saving actions that one takes are habitual, standardized practices, and as such,
different cultures are likely to have different repertoires of face-saving practices (p. 13).
He also warns that “[i]f a person is to employ his [her] repertoire of face-saving practices,
obviously he [she] must first become aware of the interpretations that others may have
placed upon his [her] acts and the interpretations that he [she] ought perhaps to place
upon theirs. In other words, he [she] must exercise perceptiveness” (p. 13). This
consideration is crucial in EIL interactions.
The complexity of facework in multicultural settings if further exacerbated by the
multiplicity of faces and face concerns. First, each interactant has his or her self-face to
consider. However, some have argued that in certain cultures self-face might be regarded
as less important than the other’s face. For example, Kotani (2008) writes:
Individuals who subscribe to collectivistic values, including Japanese, have been
found to have a tendency to use an indirect, high-context conflict style to maintain
other-face or mutual-face and to use more obliging and avoiding styles. Those
126
who subscribe to individualistic values, by contrast, including U.S. Americans,
tend to use a direct, low-context conflict style to maintain self-face and use more
competitive or dominating styles (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 2005). (p.
340)
However, not only is this “a tendency” rather than a rule, but also we cannot predict how
this tendency will play out in the “third place”, as has been discussed in the previous
chapter. Therefore, the analysis of facework should take into account the possibility of
each interactant having a concern for his or her own face regardless of which culture they
come from.
Second, as Kotani (2008) implies and as Goffman originally suggested, a person
has not only his or her own face to consider in an interaction: “[a] person will also have
feelings about the face sustained for the other participants, and while these feeling may
differ in quantity and direction from those he [she] has for his [her] own face, they
constitute an involvement in the face of others that is as immediate and spontaneous as
the involvement he [she] has in his [her] own face” (Goffman, 1967, p. 6). Thus, each
interactant might need to consider the other’s face as well as one’s own. Moreover, there
might also be the so-called “mutual-face” concern to attend to, that is, “the concern for
both parties’ images and the image of the relationship” (Ting-Toomey, 2009, p. 228).
Third, face concerns and other goals create a complex interplay in a
communicative encounter. In any interaction a person is likely to have more than one
goal, and it is reasonable to suggest that face concerns might not always be the top
priority for him or her. For example, Spencer-Oatey (2005, 2009) proposes that rapport
127
management judgments are affected by three key elements: behavioral expectations, face
sensitivities, and interactional wants or goals. She suggests that the role of
interactional/transactional goals can be analyzed in terms of how they interact with
relational/interpersonal goals (2009, p. 150). At any given time a person might need to
balance a number of interactional goals and face concerns, which are not only context-
dependent but also dynamic. Therefore, it is important to consider the whole range of
interlocutors’ goals to fully understand how their interaction with face concerns affects
interlocutors’ behavior.
Finally, Spencer-Oatey (2007, 2009) suggests that face is context-dependent. In
her discussion of the relationship between face and identity, she suggested that while they
are similar in that “both relate to the notion of one’s ‘self’-image (including individual,
relational and collective construals of self…) and both comprise multiple self-aspects or
attributes”, “face is only associated with attributes that are affectively sensitive to the
claimant” (2009, p. 141). Thus, a person has positively-evaluated attributes that he/she
wants others to acknowledge and negatively-evaluated attributes that he/she wants others
not to ascribe to him/her, and a person will feel a loss, threat, or gain to face only when a
positive attribute is not acknowledged or a negative attribute is ascribed (ibid.). Spencer-
Oatey also claims that these sets of attributes might be different not only for different
people but also for the same person in different contexts; and thus, theoretical
frameworks and researchers should not make a priori assumptions about face sensitivities
(2009, pp. 141-142, italics in the original). This caveat is very important for the analysis
of facework in peer reviews, especially in a multicultural context, because different
128
students are likely to have not only a different repertoire of facework strategies as
Goffman (1967) suggested, but also different values placed on this activity in terms of
interactional and relational goals (cf. Spencer-Oatey, 2009).
Opting Out
This section will introduce “opting out” as a strategic choice of (non-)action and
will analyze the type of encounter in which the receiver of (no) feedback in peer review
does not engage in any further discussion of this matter, in other words, chooses to opt
out. As the analysis will show, opting out is not always employed as a facework strategy,
but alternative reasons for opting out will be briefly addressed as they provide important
insights into the dynamics of face and facework in EIL interactions.
Not performing a particular speech act that might otherwise be expected in that
situation is quite common. According to Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) Politeness
Theory, opting out is a type of a strategy to deal with communicative acts that threaten
face, or Face-Threatening Acts (FTA). According to these scholars, opting out is
obviously quite effective in avoiding face threats but is associated with one major pay-off,
namely, that the speaker does not achieve her/his desired communication (1978, p. 77).
Therefore, the strategy of “not doing the FTA” is expected to be employed when the
estimated risk of face loss is the greatest (p. 65). Other scholars agree that “this strategic
choice is more likely to be made if S[peaker] is faced with a situation calling for the
performance of a highly face-threatening act … such as, for example, criticizing or
complaining, than a less threatening one, such as, for example, inviting or offering”
129
(Bonikowska, 1988, p. 170, emphasis mine). However, Bonikowska (1988) also suggests
that speakers can utilize non-linguistic means to convey their intentions and thus still
achieve their communicative goals even when employing this strategy (p. 178).
In their discussion Brown and Levinson (1978) chose to “ignore” not doing the
FTA as “there are naturally no interesting linguistic reflexes of this last-ditch strategy” (p.
77), but some have argued that studying opting out can offer valuable insights into the
speakers’ pragmatic competence and behavior (e.g., Bonikowska, 1988; Marti, 2006).
Moreover, investigating opting out is important in light of the claims that many of the
principles of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory do not hold across languages (e.g.,
Ide, 1989; Lee-Wong, 1994; Matsumoto, 1988, 2003; Meier, 2004; Wierzbicka, 1985; Yu,
2003), and thus it might not be true across all contexts that speakers use this strategy
because they perceive it to be the least face-threatening.
It is not uncommon for L1 speakers of a language to opt out as some speech act
studies have illustrated (e.g., Bonikowska, 1988; Marti, 2006; Olshtain & Weinbach,
1993; Trosborg, 1994). In L1 contexts, opting out is utilized because the speaker sees it
as the most appropriate behavior in a given situation. At the very least, it cannot be said
that native speakers of a language lack pragmatic and/or linguistic competence to perform
a speech act in question in a socially appropriate way. In L2 speakers’ case, however, it
might be very difficult to distinguish between opting out as the result of a strategic choice
and opting out as the result of other considerations or lack of pragmatic/linguistic
competence, perceived or real.
130
For example, in her study of Japanese speakers’ behavior in “problematic”
communicative encounters with native English speakers in the US, Kotani (2008) found
that her participants attributed their choice to avoid engaging in a problematic situation to
the lack of confidence in their linguistic abilities (p. 351), problems with establishing a
close, friendly relationship with native English speakers (which, in fact, were at least
partially due to their (perceived) lack of linguistic abilities) (p. 352), and the difference
they perceived between themselves as a group and “Americans” as a group (p. 353). Even
though Kotani did not explicitly discuss the pragmatic competence of her participants,
some data in her study suggest that the (perceived) lack of pragmatic competence also
contributed to their decision to opt out. For example, one of Kotani’s participants
explained her decision not to engage in an interaction by stating that she does not know
how to convey her intended meaning in a “polite” manner:
…And it would be easier to say [in Japanese]. If it were in Japanese, I could ask in a soft tone of voice like, “Do you have money?” Americans are straightforward, so I don’t know how to say politely [in English], “Give the money back to me.” … Maybe it’s not harsh in English, but if we translate it, it sounds harsh, like, “Give it back.”… Excerpt 2, from Kotani (2008), p. 348.
In another study Davis (2007) observed that resistance to pragmatic norms of a
particular speech community might lead L2 learners to avoid certain pragmatic routines
characteristic of that speech community. Also, cultural and linguistic backgrounds of L2
speakers have an effect on their choice to opt out. Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) cite an
example of Russian immigrants in Israel who tended to opt out of complaining in a
hypothetical situation when a friend refused to loan them money while Moroccan
immigrants used a wide variety of complaint strategies in the same situation. On the other
131
hand, in another hypothetical situation when someone took the parking spot they were
about to take, Russians tended to use very severe complaint strategies, including threats
and cursing, while Moroccans opted out or used softer strategies.
These studies, although few in number, suggest that it might be very informative
“to consider not only ‘the said’, but also ‘the unsaid’ responses of the informants,
[including] deliberate choices of opting out” (Marti, 2006, p. 1838).
Opting Out as Facework
In his discussion of facework strategies, Goffman (1967) suggests that:
the person will have two points of view - a defensive orientation toward saving
his [her] own face and a protective orientation toward saving the other’s face.
Some practices will be primarily defensive and others primarily protective,
although in general one may expect these two perspectives to be taken at the same
time. In trying to save the face of others, the person must choose a tack that will
not lead to loss of his [her] own; in trying to save his [her] own face, he [she]
must consider the loss of face that his [her] action may entail for others. (p. 14)
The basic type of avoidance, avoiding the face-threatening contact altogether (p. 15),
cannot be employed by the students in peer reviews, unless, of course, they choose not to
attend the class for which a peer review is scheduled, but that is not a practical solution.
There are so many class meetings that include or are solely devoted to peer review that
the student would fail the class for poor attendance should he/she choose to employ this
strategy.
132
Other avoidance strategies Goffman (1967) categorizes into two groups, defensive
measures and protective measures:
• defensive measures include such strategies as avoiding threatening
topics/activities, being modest and using hedging in any claims made about
oneself;
• protective measures include such strategies as showing respect, politeness,
employing discretion and ambiguous statements, preemptively providing
explanations if one is about to commit a potentially offensive act, employing a
joking manner when making a face-threatening remark, “not noticing” the other’s
action that has caused the other loss of face (pp. 15-18).
Opting out, then, is a strategy that potentially can be either defensive or protective, or
both at the same time.
Juchun, a 20-year-old female from China, who had been in the US for about 1.5
years at the time of the study, first as a student in an intensive English program and later
as a university student, wrote in her response to CI 1:
No, I would not say anything to my partner. This thing happened to me all the time, and I do the same thing sometimes. I wouldn’t say anything because I don’t wanna embrrace my partner, and it is really ok for me if he/she didn’t write anything on my paper. As long as I read creaful on his/her essay, I would be happy about it.
Unfortunately, Juchun did not participate in the interview, so she could not be asked to
explain her own reasons for not providing feedback for her partners and what, in her
opinion, might be the reason for her partner not providing feedback for her. However, her
choice to opt out of further interaction on this matter is undoubtedly a face-saving move,
133
and she identified it as a primarily protective measure to avoid causing her partner a loss
of face: “I don’t wanna embrrace (embarrass) my partner”. Also, it is evident that Juchun
had considered her own interactional goals when making the decision. She stated that, “it
is really ok for me if he/she didn’t write anything on my paper. As long as I read creaful
(carefully) on his/her essay, I would be happy about it”. According to the scholarship on
teaching writing, responding to peers’ writing “builds the critical skills needed to analyze
and revise one’s own writing” (Leki, 1990, as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002, p. 8).
Composition teachers often address this aspect when introducing peer review activities in
their classes, and it appears that Juchun is familiar with it. Thus, even though Juchun did
not receive any useful feedback from her partner, she had still gained something from her
work during this peer review session, and thus had at least partially achieved her practical
goal to a satisfactory extent, as she indicated in her statement: “I would be happy about
it”.
Ji Hye, a 28-year-old female from Korea, who had been in the US for about 3
months as a university student at the time of the study, explained her view of the situation
in the following way:
I think, if he/she didn’t write anything except “good job” on my essay, it means he/she didn’t enjoy reading it. The given situation mentioned that I know my essay was far from being good, so I assume my classmate who read my essay didn’t consider my essay was good. He or she just wanted to be nice. Maybe he or she couldn’t find anything that intriguing from my essay. I will figure out why that student wasn’t interested in my essay, with reviewing my essay by myself. Reading and writing comment on each other’s drafts are not give-and-take. It’s a part of studying, but it’s not a labor for price. I would learn something from other people’s essay with reading those and writing comments on those.
134
Ji Hye’s response indicates that her own choice to opt out of further discussion of
her essay was based on her interpretation of her partner’s actions. She saw the lack of
critical feedback as a protective measure by which her partner was trying to protect her
face. Ji Hye further confirmed such interpretation in her interview: “he or she said it’s
nice - which means they wanna be polite - they [don’t] wanna hurt my feeling”.
Therefore, to reciprocate her partner’s concern for her face, Ji Hye chose not to pursue
the matter. If she were to complain or request more feedback, she would not only force
her partner to do what she/he tried to avoid, but also put her partner in “wrong face” by
indicating that he/she had failed to fulfill Ji Hye’s expectations and/or the responsibilities
of the reviewer. In addition, attention to practical goals is also evident in Ji Hye’s
response when she wrote that, “I would learn something from other people’s essay with
reading those and writing comments on those”. Thus, similarly to Juchun, Ji Hye
balances her interactional and relational goals.
It also appears that in this situation opting out does not preclude one from
achieving his or her desired communication, contrary to Brown and Levinson’s claim
(1978, p. 77). Bonikowska (1988) suggested that the speaker can utilize non-linguistic
means to convey her/his intention (p. 178), but in this case the very absence of critical
feedback was interpreted by Ji Hye as a “polite” strategy, an indirect criticism, the lack of
anything “interesting”, “intriguing”, “good”, or “enjoyable” in her essay, and she took it
as a suggestion to revise her essay in the same way as she would have taken more direct
criticism. Of course, the success of this strategy in these circumstances is contingent on
the writer’s awareness of the deficiencies in his or her draft, otherwise he or she might
135
take the lack of critical feedback as the evidence of the lack of issues to criticize. It is also
contingent on the writer’s awareness that opting out might be used as a face-saving or
politeness strategy. In Ji Hye’s case, she appears to have developed such an awareness in
her previous interactions with her classmates:
…he or she said it’s nice - which means they wanna be polite - they [don’t] wanna hurt my feeling …they can’t write like - oh your essay is terrible - they can’t write that (laughter) or they can’t say that [that would be impolite?] ohh the- uh maybe they think it is impolite - sometimes they are really care about me [uhum] especially when I go to English class - uh there is another Korean but - usually I talk to Chinese or other - friends [uhum] and they uh we - basically we come from different culture - so they are very careful yeah very care about me (laughter)
Based on her previous interactions with her classmates in the English composition
class, the majority of whom were Chinese, Ji Hye constructed a frame of interpretation
(Agar, 1994, p. 232) through which the actions of her classmates were interpreted
primarily as the acts of “really caring about” her. This frame allowed her to interpret the
lack of critical feedback as indirect criticism and an act of good will. Jiang (2003), who
studied Chinese students’ attitudes toward and behaviors during peer review activities in
an ESL composition class, has made a compelling argument that their face concerns and
face-saving orientation have a strong effect on their attitudes and behaviors. The majority
of participants in his study expressed concerns about “hurting” or “embarrassing” their
partners with negative/critical feedback and avoided providing such feedback, sometimes
even when urged to by their partners (e.g., pp. 116-117). Thus, at least in case of her
Chinese classmates, Ji Hye’s interpretation is likely to be correct.
Ji Hye’s response also shows evidence of metapragmatic awareness when she
indicated the variability of her politeness judgments. In her assessment of her partners’
136
intentions, she used the word “maybe”, suggesting that there is a possibility that
providing negative feedback might be considered impolite: “maybe they think it is
impolite”.
Similar facework pattern is exhibited by Zhiwei, a 21-year-old female from China,
who had been in the US for about 1.5 years at the time of the study, first as a student in
an intensive English program and later as a university student:
I wouldn’t say anything to my partner. Because, he/she thinks my draft is too boring but he/she is kind and doesn’t want to point out the drawbacks in my so poor draft.
Zhiwei also interpreted her partner’s lack of comments as a face-saving strategy
and an act of “kindness”, so she reciprocated by not asking for more feedback, which
might be perceived as face-threatening. Thus, Zhiwei’s behavior seems to correspond to
Jiang’s (2003) findings about typical Chinese behavior in peer review contexts. So it
appears that Zhiwei used the Chinese cultural frame, that is, that she transferred a familiar
frame into a new context, although it is possible that she developed it on the basis on the
interactions with her classmates, as did Ji Hye. Unfortunately, Zhiwei did not participate
in the interview, so we do not know how she had built this frame or why she though it
was appropriate to transfer it.
Conflicting Frames of Interpretation
While research supports the assumption that Chinese speakers have a very strong
orientation toward protecting the other’s face and that such an orientation often leads
them to avoid providing negative feedback during peer reviews (e.g., Jiang, 2003), it does
137
not mean that all Chinese students have such a frame of interpretation or exhibit such
behavior in peer reviews. For example, a study by Spencer-Oatey (2009) illustrated that
Chinese speakers’ behavior is affected by an interplay of different face sensitivities and
interactional goals, and thus is more complex than simply following the other- or mutual-
face orientation. Jiang (2003) also observed differences in attitudinal and behavioral
patterns between the members of the seemingly homogeneous group of Chinese ESL
students in a writing class20. According to Tracy (2001), “people’s communicative
responses [in problematic situations] are not uniform, even among those who speak the
same language, so that their conversational choices or strategies become consequential”
(as cited in Kotani, 2008, p. 340). When interlocutors come from different languages and
cultures, the difficulty increases due to the different expectations and understandings of
appropriate ways to handle problematic situations.
For example, Huan, a 19-year-old Chinese male, who had been in the US for 4
years at the time of this study, first as a high school student and later as a university
student, did not interpret his partners’ behavior as facework:
I don’t talk to him directly, Because it only means, he didn’t spend any effort on my paper, not a responsable person, I will find another student to comment on my draft.
Huan’s frame of interpretation did not involve face concerns, and neither did it
involve the aspect of “caring”. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Huan labeled his
reviewer as “not responsible”, which implies the lack of caring about either the
obligations of the reviewer or Huan’s needs.
20 Participants in Jiang’s study were all from Mainland China, between 18 and 19 years old, mostly male (13 males and 5 females) (see Jiang, 2003, pp. 33-34, for a more detailed description).
138
Another Chinese student, Haidan, a 20-year-old female, who had been in the US
for about 3 years as a university student at the time of the study, suggested a similar
interpretation of her partner’s actions:
In her response to CI 1 she wrote the following:
I won’t say anything to him/her since him/her is also an international student. Maybe there are some grammar or organization problems make my essay no clear. However, I hope to get advice from others
In her interview Haidan offered another possible interpretation:
actually in the class when somebody - they don’t have - anything to told you - an advice - it kind of means they didn’t see that paper or essay - like in detail or they don’t care about it
However, in neither of her interpretations did she consider her partner’s behavior
to be a face-saving strategy. Haidan’s first interpretation attributed the lack of feedback to
either the deficiencies of her own draft or the lack of linguistic or schemata knowledge on
behalf of her reviewer rather than face concerns. Her second interpretation attributed it to
her partner’s negative personal traits, as did Huan. Moreover, she explicitly applied a
“lack of caring” frame to interpret her partner’s behavior.
Manal, a 19-year-old female from Saudi Arabia, who had been in the US for
about 8 months at the time of the study, had a similar interpretation of her partner’s
behavior. She explained her choice not to engage in further discussion of the matter in the
following way:
I wouldn’t say anything to him/her because everyone should do the work in correct and complete manner. However, if she/he sees that this is what he/she can do that is fine, but if not he/she is going to lose credits and I can have many other revision options.
139
Manal’s statement, “everyone should do the work in correct and complete
manner”, implies that she attributed her partner’s actions to the lack of either ability or
willingness to “do the work in correct and complete manner”, the latter being a variation
of the “lack of caring” frame.
Manal has quite an extensive experience of living in a variety of European and
Asian countries and has some knowledge of several other languages in addition to Arabic
and English. Prior to coming to the US, she had studied English for 6 months at a school
in England and had lived in other countries for periods ranging from 1 month to 1.5 years.
Given such a wealth of intercultural experiences, Manal is more likely to have a higher
level of cultural awareness than other participants whose intercultural experiences are
more limited. In this light the certainty of her response and the lack of flexibility in the
interpretation of her partner’s behavior and intentions are somewhat surprising.
Kwan Woo, a 20-year-old male from Korea, who had been in the US for 3 months
at the time of the study and had previously studied English for 2 years in a full-time
immersion school in Cambodia, also attributed the lack of feedback to either linguistic or
personality faults of his partner:
I wouldn’t be satisfied but wouldn’t really complain or ask for more comments on my draft since I know she/he wouldn’t be either not as fluent in English as I am or concerned of my paper at all. I would just try my best to find a native speaker who can review the paper or go visit the instructor in his office hour. While it is not clear what affected the way Haidan and Huan had built their
frames of interpretation, Kwan Woo had built his on the observations of his classmates’
behavior. He did not participate in the interview but had narrated his experience in
response to question 11 on the questionnaire:
140
Well the similar things usually happen in my English 107 class. Most of them are hardly able to understand the vocabulary and words that I use which are more of academics and sophisticated, so everytime I ask them for the peer-review on my draft I don’t usually expect anything big. They most likely end up getting lost in the reading and giving me general advices which I already know. And sometimes it really pisses me off because I don’t feel like learning and improving. The level of peer-reviewing between my high school friends was way higher and helpful in improving the quality of paper than the current english class which is supposed to be college-level. In this narrative, Kwan Woo made it clear that he had constructed his frame of
interpretation in his English 107 class. Of particular interest in Kwan Woo’s case is that
in the past he had positive experience with peer reviews, which suggests that he is not
prejudiced against this activity in general. Moreover, his previous experience made him
realize that his peers’ feedback is “helpful in improving the quality of [his] paper”. This
is especially important because Kwan Woo had studied in a full-time English immersion
school where his classmates were from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds,
similarly to his English 107 classmates. It suggests that he is not prejudiced against other
ESL speakers as reviewers in general, even though in his other statement he claimed that
he would seek help from a “native [English] speaker”. So it appears that his interpretation
of his partner’s actions is context-specific, and it was this particular group of peers to
which he attributed these negative characteristics.
On the one hand, such alternative interpretations are not surprising. According to
the studies of students’ perceptions of peer reviews in college ESL composition
classrooms, some students distrust their peers’ ability to provide feedback and critique
their essays (e.g., Jiang, 2003; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Nelson & Carson, 1998). Nor are
141
these interpretations necessarily incorrect: it would be naïve to suggest that university
students are always highly motivated, responsible, and diligent.
What is of importance, however, is the process of construction of these frames of
interpretation. Both Haidan and Zhiwei are Chinese, but their frames of interpretation
directly contradict each other: “lack of caring” (Haidan) vs. “caring” (Zhiwei). Both Ji
Hye and Kwan Woo are Korean and had built their frames of interpretation through
interactions in their English composition classes, but Ji Hye had built a “caring” frame,
while Kwan Woo, “lack of caring”, evidenced in his statement: “I know she/he wouldn’t
be either not as fluent in English as I am or concerned of my paper at all” (emphasis
mine). The problem indicated by these conflicting frames is not that one frame is better
than another, as in “caring” is necessarily better than “lack of caring”. Neither is it that
one frame is correct and the other is not, because in EIL interaction both participants
should be equally engaged in the negotiation of meaning. The problem appears to be that,
in Goffman’s (1967) terms, the participants in this study lack perceptiveness, the
“aware[ness] of the interpretations that others may have placed upon his [her] acts and
the interpretations that he [she] ought perhaps to place upon theirs” (p. 13).
It is reasonable to expect variability in speakers’ judgments, but the issue with the
judgments of the study participants’ is that they rarely consider alternative explanations
of their partners’ behaviors. As is evident from examples above, the participants are not
flexible in their interpretations. Kwan Woo says “I know that”, Huan says “it only means”,
and Zhiwei says “he/she is kind” (emphasis mine). Others, such as Ji Hye and Haidan,
hedge their statements with “I think” or “maybe”, but they do not provide alternative
142
interpretations. A significant difference in the latter case that might have an impact on the
social relationship between the interactants is that Ji Hye’s frame of interpretation
ascribes positive intentions to her partners rather than attributes their behavior to their
lack of abilities or negative personality traits, as does Haidan.
In other words, participants in this study appear to lack the flexibility which is
needed for the negotiation of meaning. And, as many EIL scholars agree, negotiation of
meaning lies in the core of intercultural communication, and successful communication
depends on speakers’ negotiation skills more than on any other aspect of their
competence (e.g., House, 2002; McKay, 2009). The reality is that in case of EIL
communicative encounters, simply building a new frame is not enough. As has been
discussed in the previous chapter, EIL encounters are “third places” and, as House
(2003a) suggests, the “community of ELF[/EIL] speakers is “a kind of “intersociety”
which interactants must create from scratch with each new ELF[/EIL] event” (p. 148).
Thus, the ability to create multiple frames and choose one accordingly to the situation is
crucial, and the data suggest that participants in this study lack this ability.
The lack of understanding of the other’s frames of interpretation might lead to the
development of cultural stereotypes. For example, Ahmed, a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian,
after having experienced similar situations in his ESL Composition class with a Chinese
classmate, had developed the following understanding:
I believe that Chinese have like - if you want to do something you have to do it your own - I can’t like for example help you all the time [uhum] that’s what I saw
143
On the one hand, Ahmed added a qualifier to his statement: “I don’t believe that
all Chinese do that”, but later he returned to this point and contrasted the behavior of his
Chinese partner with the Saudi Arabian cultural value:
it’s not like they don’t want to help me just like - why should I do it for him - [uhum] myself - I have something to do [okay] * in my culture [uhum] we have something I don’t know it’s called in Arabic * - if you have something to do very important - but somebody needs your help - and you do it for him - it’s like it’s my culture [uhum] if you do it for him it’s like give you some values and I don’t know how to explain that but this is how we do it in my culture [uhum] we like give help to other people [uhum] ** more than they give us In this excerpt, Ahmed shifts between singular and plural pronouns when talking
about his Chinese partner and Chinese as a cultural group, which might imply that
although he does not wish to overgeneralize this behavior, he sees it as typical for the
Chinese. Moreover, Ahmed contrasts the behavior of his partner not just with his own
behavior, but with the behavior of Saudi Arabians as a cultural group, evidenced in his
use of expressions such as “my culture” and the pronouns “we” and “us”. Thus Ahmed
seems to be contrasting not just the behaviors of individuals but cultural values that
underlie such behaviors.
Ahmed appears to attribute his partner’s behavior to the cultural group to which
his partner belongs as a result of the ultimate attribution error. Ultimate attribution error,
the notion introduced by Pettigrew (1979), suggests that when individuals witness what
they perceive to be a negative behavior by a member of a different group (outgroup), they
are more likely to attribute it to the personality of the actor who is seen as representative
of the whole group rather than situational factors, and as a result, attribute negative
144
characteristics to the other group and form and/or reinforce stereotypes about them (as
cited in Kotani, 2008, p. 340).
Other Facework Strategies
The participants who chose to engage in the interaction exhibited preference for
requesting feedback rather than complaining about not having received any/enough.
Some interlanguage pragmatics research has suggested that “newcomers to the target
community attempt to sound less offensive and less face-threatening” (Olshtain &
Weinbach, 1993, p. 120). Thus, one of the reasons to avoid complaining might be the
perception of this speech act as more face-threatening and/or impolite. Rather than opt
out or complain then, some participants in this study chose to conceal their intention to
complain and utilized a variety of strategies to engage in an interaction with their partner
to receive more feedback.
Avoidance of Complaining
Trosborg (1994) defines the complaint as “an illocutionary act in which the
speaker (the complainer) expresses his/her disapproval, negative feeling, etc. towards the
state of affairs described in the proposition (the complainable) and for which he/she holds
the hearer (the complainee) responsible, either directly or indirectly” (pp. 311-312).
Complains might be seen as highly threatening to the social relationship between the
speaker and the hearer (Trosborg, 1994, p. 312).
145
The avoidance of complaining as facework is explained by Yanbo, a 21-year-old
Chinese male. In his written response he explicitly stated that he would not complain:
I wouldn’t complain about it. Without knowing my partner’s culture custom, I couldn’t determine whether he’s been polite or impolite, tried hard or not. Since he didn’t write down useful comments, I would ask, in hope that he would tell me in speaking instead of by writing down. I may ask like this: “What do you think about my draft?”, “Will it better if I change this?” “Do you have any idea if I could improve my draft?”
Yanbo’s statement that he “wouldn’t complain about it” implies that complaining
is a strategy that he had considered but decided against. The reason for this decision is his
lack of confidence in his partner’s reasons and intentions. In his interview, Yanbo
explained that he believes that people from different cultures are being polite in different
ways. When he lacks knowledge of his interlocutor’s notions of politeness, he chooses to
give that person the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, and act as if the person had been
polite. Yanbo says: “if I knew that [whether the partner was acting politely according to
his notion of politeness or not] certainly I might act differently - if I do not - I will just act
as if he’s polite”. If his partner was trying to be polite, a proper response would be to
reciprocate, and thus complaining, as a more face-threatening strategy, would not be
appropriate, as Yanbo himself explained in the following interview excerpt:
R: in situation one you wrote - I wouldn’t complain about it ... why did you think about complaining in this particular situation and why did you decide that you’re not going to complain?
Yanbo: something - something maybe- maybe in my understanding that complaining is - is not polite - is impolite
R: it’s never polite or in this particular situation it’s not polite?
Yanbo: (long pause) is not- it isn’t never - it isn’t never [uhum] maybe just in this situation
146
R: so why do you think in this situation it’s not polite?
Yanbo: (long pause) I don’t really know (laughter) … I don’t really know the reason - I just feel like that
R: … do you think that it’s not good for you - or it’s not good for the other person - if you complain? …
Yanbo: I guess- I guess I think it’s bad for me -- yes I think- I thought like this [uhum] ** then I thought it’s a bad behavior to c- complain … just in this situation [uhum] maybe - say if I want the other person to - write more about- more comments so - his companion would - would know better - if I want to do this I may- I may use other methods- other than complaining [uhum] cause -- so that’s -- and complaining - I think - I think complaining - might- might have- might achieve the- the same goal but - but also it will make other people - not feel good [uhum] although a- complaining - can make my compa- my companion - know that he should write more [aha] but he- he will also -- not feel good [okay] so that’s what I thought First, Yanbo stated that, in his opinion, complaining, at least in this particular
situation, is not a “polite” behavior; and therefore, complaining in this situation would
not be appropriate if the other person was trying to be polite. Yanbo’s explanation of his
opting out of complaining also illustrates the decision-making process, and specifically,
the process of weighing face concerns against interactional goals. In the given situation
Yanbo’s main interactional goal was to receive comments from the reviewer, and Yanbo
realized that complaining might achieve this goal. However, because complaining is “a
bad behavior” and would make the reviewer “not feel good”, he decided to use “other
methods”. From the perspective of facework then, this excerpt shows a discursive
struggle over the question of whose face is being threatened in this situation and whose
face needs protection. Interestingly, Yanbo started with the statement that “it’s bad for
me”, stressing the pronoun “me”, but later he continued to say that it “will make the other
people not feel good”. Thus, Yanbo’s self-face and the face of his interlocutor appear to
be mutually dependent and connected. His statement that complaining is “bad for me”
147
illustrates his concern for self-face, as he later acknowledged that complaining might help
him achieve his interactional goal. In addition, his assessment of complaining as “bad
behavior” also points to face considerations: were he to behave “badly”, he would be in
“wrong face”.
Yanbo’s choice of the line of behavior also illustrates the interplay of face
concerns and interactional goals. Rather than opt out of any action and thus any face-
threat altogether, he decided to choose a less face-threatening strategy because the
practical goals were still of importance to him. Having assumed that his partner had
attempted to be polite in not providing critical comments, and having decided that he
should be polite in return, Yanbo chose to ask his partner some questions that elicit more
detailed negative feedback in a less direct way: “What do you think about my draft?”,
“Will it (sic.) better if I change this?”, “Do you have any idea if (sic.) I could improve my
draft?”
Most likely Yanbo’s preference for a less direct strategy is based on Chinese
politeness norms. Initially, he struggled with an explanation of the source of his
knowledge about the (im)politeness of complaining: “I don’t really know the reason - I
just feel like that”. However, a later interview excerpt suggests that he views this
perception as the result of his L1/C1 socialization:
the cultures - make - different answers [yeah] it is very specific [yeah] although they also would think their answer- why they answer that- why they polite - they will think -- it’s just like that - as I do - I think - it’s polite just like that
In this excerpt Yanbo explained his belief that different cultures have different notions of
politeness, so that the members of these cultures unconsciously, “just like that”, adopt
148
these notions. In this light, his later statement “as I do” implies that his conceptualization
of politeness come from his, that is, Chinese, culture.
Questions can also function as indirect complaints. For example, Rajpal, a 19-
year-old male from India21, who had been in the US for about 2 years at the time of the
study, wrote in his response:
I would [say something] but not in an angry tone. I probably would ask something like “Did you really not find anything wrong?”, because I won’t like to make him feel angry/weird. And may be in future, I will choose some other partner if possible. In the explanation of his choice of strategy during the interview, Rajpal revealed
that, in addition to trying to elicit more negative feedback from his partner, his question:
“Did you really not find anything wrong?” was meant to replace another one: “Why
didn’t you write anything?” He explained that a more direct question might anger his
partner:
it might be like uhh he might be feeling why is he talking to me like that or something … if I asked why didn’t you write anything then he might find it - offensive or something That is, this question “Did you really not find anything wrong?” was intended as
an indirect expression of disapproval of his partners’ actions. This question is more
ambivalent and might be interpreted as a request for confirmation that there are indeed no
problems with Rajpal’s essay. The question “Why didn’t you write anything?”, as a direct
accusation, has a stronger illocutionary force of complaint (Trosborg, 1994, p. 317-318). 21 Rajpal identifies himself as a native speaker of Punjabi and Hindi, and he considers English to be only a subject that he has studied in school. Thus, although India is considered an “outer circle” country (Kachru, 1986) or the country where English is an “Institutional L2” (Siegel, 2003), Rajpal’s experience of learning and using English before coming to the US is similar to other study participants’ who are all from the “expanding circle” countries (Kachru, 1986) or the countries where English is an “External L2” (Siegel, 2003).
149
Thus, Rajpal relies on indirectness as the other-face saving strategy, in order to prevent
causing his partner offense. Rajpal also stated that he would avoid working with this
person in the future, which indicates that the social relationship between him and his
partner had already been significantly damaged, even though there had not been any overt
confrontation between then.
Similarly to Rajpal, Patricia, an 18-year-old student from Central America, who
had been in the US for about 3 months at the time of the study, also used questions to
fulfill two functions:
I would say: “do you like it? … everything … really … Why you like it? you found everything right” […] and maybe I would ask what part you like it the most to verify if the student really read the essay and make him/her realize he/she is not doing a good work On the one hand, she attempted to elicit more feedback, and on the other,
employed questions as an indirect complaint strategy, as she explained in her interview:
Patricia: because I think it is mean - like - can you write something - that sounds mean
R: why does it sound mean?
Patricia: I don’t know - I don’t like to do it like that - I always - uhh make the person realize - indir- indirectedly [uhum] because - I don’t know - I would feel bad An utterance “Can you write something?” is a conventionally indirect request
(Trosborg, 1994, pp. 197-198), but for Patricia it appears to be too direct and thus
inappropriate for this situation. Interestingly, she disapproved of her partner’s behavior:
“he/she is not doing a good work”, but she did not find it a sufficient condition to raise
the level of directness of her requests or to express her disapproval as a complaint
strategy (Trosborg, 1994, p. 316). Also, Patricia suggested that she avoids excessive
150
directness out of concern for self-face rather than her partner’s face when she stated: “I
would feel bad”, if she were to use a more direct strategy to express her intention.
Another strategy that might be used to address face concerns is humor. Jianfei, a
21-year-old female from China, who had been in the US for about 9 months at the time of
the study, appears to use a complaint strategy in her written response:
Did you notice that our English teacher just said ‘good job’ is not an accepted comments? If you can’t understand my draft, just ask me & I really need your advise. The first part of her response appears to be a complaint in the form of an indirect
accusation (Trosborg, 1994, p. 317), but in her interview Jianfei explained that she would
employ a joking manner in saying this: “I think I’m gonna like - talk her and like just
make a joke like - did you hear - did you hear what - our teacher said and just like this”.
Such manner might mitigate the face-threatening force of the complaint or even
transform the illocutionary force of complaint altogether, and thus can be an effective
face-saving strategy, but the danger lies in the possibility that the hearer might fail to
interpret this utterance as a joke. The second part of Jianfei’s written response might be a
mild hint, but it is more likely to be used as a supportive move for the request. So in real-
life interaction Jianfei would likely use such statement in combination with another
request strategy.
Request Strategies
The speech act of request can be defined as “an illocutionary act whereby a
speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to
151
perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker” (Trosborg, 1994, p. 187). As
Trosborg emphasizes, the characteristic feature of a request is that it is an act that is
performed for the benefit of the speaker and at the cost to the hearer, which distinguishes
it from other speech acts such as warnings or suggestions (1994, p. 188). However, a
request may be presented as a warning, or suggestion, or advice (1994, p. 189). Therefore,
in this study, following Trosborg, the acts that have “the illocutionary point of “getting
somebody to do something” which is “primarily to the benefit if the hearer” [and] may
range in illocutionary force from ordering to begging” (1994, p. 189) are analyzed as
requests.
“Giving Face”
The request strategies chosen by Haiwen, a 21-year-old female from China, who
had been in the US for about 3 months at the time of the study, are primarily oriented
toward the other’s face and mutual-face, but she attends to her own interactional goals as
well:
I will say “thank you” first, then say: “I know I still have some shortcomings in my essay, I don’t know how to fix it, could you give me some advice, How do you think my topic sentence. I think communication is the best way to improve. Haiwen wants to improve her writing and believes that her partner’s feedback can
help her improve, so she needs this “communication” enough to engage in a potentially
face-threatening situation. She needs specific feedback that would provide her with
information that she needs to “improve”. However, her concern for the potential face loss
that her partner might suffer as the result of her pursuing this interactional goal is evident.
152
First, Haiwen’s decision to say “thank you” instead of expressing discontent might be a
strategy of “outright face support” (Arundale, 2006, p. 195). She “gives face” to her
partner, that is, “[arranges] for another to take a better line than he [she] might otherwise
have been able to take, the other thereby gets face given him [her], this being one way in
which he [she] can gain face” (Goffman, 1967, p. 9). She also considers this a politeness
strategy that is oriented toward mutual-face:
maybe he or she didn’t help me a lot but uhm - but I think saying thanks is - plat? - uhh polete? [polite?] yeah [aha] it’s polite uhm - it will makes us more comfortable to continue our communication Haiwen’s use of “thank you” in this situation is a move to facilitate further
interaction rather than an expression of gratitude. In fact, in her interview she
acknowledged that she did not have much to be grateful for because her partner did not
help her “a lot”, but she did not convey that to her partner.
After Haiwen had “given face” to her partner, she used another facework strategy:
explicitly acknowledging deficiencies of her essay, “I know I still have some
shortcomings in my essay”, and her own lack of ability to deal with this problem, “I don’t
know how to fix it”. On the one hand, this strategy can be a protective measure for
Haiwen’s self-face. Goffman (1967) suggests that by making claims about oneself “with
belitting modesty”, one “will have prepared a self for himself [herself] that will not be
discredited by exposure, personal failure, or the unanticipated acts of others” (p. 16). So
by preemptively admitting that she has “shortcomings” in her essay, Haiwen prevented
face loss that her partner’s negative comments might have caused her.
153
On the other hand, Haiwen’s behavior is consistent with some features of Chinese
politeness identified by Gu (1990), who introduced an alternative to Leech’s (1983)
Politeness Principle to explain the Chinese concept of politeness (limao). Gu (1990)
submits that Chinese politeness rules or maxims include self-denigration (denigrate self
and elevate other) (p. 246), so it is possible that Haiwen admits her incompetence
following this maxim as a social norm and does not employ it strategically as a protective
measure.
In this interaction Haiwen appears to have a much stronger orientation toward
mutual-face than toward her self-face. According to Gu (1990), for Chinese face might be
threatened when “self cannot live up to what s/he has claimed, or when what self has
done is likely to incur ill fame or reputation” (p. 242). So, if by implying that the
reviewer had failed to fulfill her/his obligations Haiwen caused her/him face loss, she
balanced it by inflicting some face loss upon herself for the sake of comity22.
Haiwen also used the word “polite” in her explanation, and it appears that, for her,
the major function of polite behavior not only in this situation but in general is to protect
not one’s individual face, but mutual-face:
Haiwen: I think it’s important to be polite - it’s good for me - for other people [uhum]
22 Another participant’s explanation of the choice of a similar strategy employed in another situation confirms that other- and mutual-face orientation might supersede self-face concerns and result in what on the surface appears to be a self-inflicted face loss. Fan, a 21-year-old female from China, in her written response to CI 3 “Borrowed Money” (see Appendix B), explained her choice of the following utterance: “I don’t have any money now. I’m facing a financial difficulty. I need the money I used to lend to you to repay others…”, as an other- and mutual-face saving strategy:
I think this is not- this not- that would not hurt the- my classmate because [aha] I put myself in in- I mean- how to say it - a lower position in the communication [aha] because I say oh I have a problem - so I want the money not because you are s- some kind of person - it’s because I need money so I think that not- that would not hurt him or her [uhum] so - uhh I think - and a - I think maybe this is uhm a - matter that - uhh has least- least influence on our - uhh I mean relationship.
154
R: why is it good for you?
Haiwen: uh it’s good for have a communication - it’s good for have a relationship [okay] yeah because it make us more- have more and more uhh - uhm - like trust - trust each other [uhum] it would makes us trust each other - yeah In her explanation: “it’s good for me - for other people … for have a relationship”,
all faces are interdependent. Thus, for Haiwen, her self-face and face of her interlocutor
are mutually dependent and connected, and it is through protecting the connection that
she protects her self-face and face of her partner rather then address them as separate
entities.
Face Concerns and Interactional Goals
Naima, a 21-year-old female from Kuwait, who had been in the US for about 5
months at the time of the study, appears to employ a similar strategy. In her response she
wrote that she would request more feedback from her partner in the following way:
please write down the useful comments to help me I need your help I know my essay is not good… please help me find my problems On the one hand, Naima also used a strategy of openly admitting the problem
with her work: “my essay is not good”, and the inability to deal with the problem on her
own: “I need your help”. However, she was more direct than Haiwen in her request for
help. The first statement, “please write down the useful comments to help me”, is an
imperative, and even though it is internally modified with a politeness marker “please”, it
is still an order, the most direct request strategy (see Trosborg, 1994, pp. 202-204, 212).
The second part of Naima’s third statement, “I know my essay is not good… please help
155
me find my problems”, uses the same request strategy, although in this case it is modified
internally with the same politeness marker “please” and externally with a preparator, a
supporting statement that prepares the other for the request by indicating the particular
problem that Naima has (ibid., p. 216). Her second statement, “I need your help”, can be
a mild hint, but it is unlikely that Naima would use it on its own since it might be too
vague (ibid., pp. 192-194). Alternatively, it can be another type of preparator, in this case
a supporting statement to let her interlocutor know that a request is coming, which Naima
then would follow by a more specific request, indicating what exactly she needs help
with (ibid., p. 216). Internal and external modification serves to decrease the degree of
directness of the request, but even with these modifications Naima’s requests might
appear too direct to her interlocutors. In addition to being quite direct, her first statement
might sound face-threatening because of the way she uses the word “useful”. “Please
write down the useful comments to help me” may be interpreted as an indirect complaint
or accusation: “You have not given me any useful comments” or “You have given me
useless comments”.
Obviously, the written responses provided by Naima in the questionnaire do not
represent a full range of the strategies that she might use in such a situation and do not
illustrate how she might organize and combine multiple strategies in a speech event. The
following excerpt provided a glimpse into the interactional aspect of her requesting
behavior, even though it obviously is not an accurate account since it is not the discourse
data:
once - uhh - like a classmate with me - a Chinese classmate - wrote - you have- you have a good essay I like it - that’s a comment - for the whole essay and I said
156
- please can you write another comment just - like - not a comment a compliment - if you can say - can- can you just complain about the e- the essay - can you just tell me anything about it - can you just - like read it more deeply and- and he said - I like it - and I said ok - I like it too - but I know that I’m having a mistakes and I- I don’t want - I- I want you to point me that mistake - probably I can see that’s a correct way but it’s a- it’s a mistake… First of all, it is apparent that Naima’s requesting strategies in this excerpt are not
exactly the same as the ones she listed on the written questionnaire, although there are
noticeable similarities. For example, “I know my essay is not good” and “I know that I’m
having a mistakes” are quite similar. However, there are also differences. For example,
“please can you write another comment?” is less direct than “please help me find my
problems”, as the former is not an order but a conventionally indirect request (Trosborg,
1994, pp. 197-198). In addition, there are more supportive moves in this excerpt and a
wider variety of request strategies, including a demand: “I want you to point me that
mistake”. Although this strategy is categorized as conventionally indirect, it can be
impolite in its unmodified form (ibid., pp. 201-202).
But unlike Haiwen, whose behavior appears to be heavily based on her L1/C1
norms, Naima’s requesting behavior appears to contradict the descriptions of Arabic
communicative style. According to Feghali’s (1997) review of studies of Arabic
communicative style, indirectness is among its typical characteristics (pp. 358-359), and
Naima is being quite direct on a number of occasions. Such “atypical” pragmatic
behavior has at least two possible interpretations. On the one hand, there are some studies
that contradict the generalization that Arabic speakers’ communicative style is indirect
(Nelson et al, 1993, cited in Feghali, 1997; Nelson et al. 2002). On the basis of their
findings, Nelson and colleagues (2002) have argued for the “importance of examining
157
communication style and language use according to particular speech act situations” (p.
52). On the other hand, it is also likely that Naima’s unexpectedly direct requesting
behavior represents her “third place”. Naima had been in the US as a university student
for only 5 months by the time of the study, but she is a very well-traveled person who has
used English in her many travels to countries in Europe and Asia, as well as to Australia
and the previous visits to the US, thus her choice of direct strategies in the given
interaction might represent her “shuttling” between different speech communities.
Naima’s interview also illustrates the transformation of the interplay of face
concerns and interactional goals over time:
for- first time I was like feeling shy not to talk to someone like please just write the comments the right way [aha] or that - and then I just realized I’m- I’m not getting any points for that it’s like workshopping we need to help each other [uhum] the doctor said you need to help each other She explained that initially she had felt “shy” to request more satisfactory
feedback, but later she gained a better understanding of the purpose of this activity as
well as the responsibilities of the reviewer: “we need to help each other”, based on what
the teacher had told the students about this activity. This example underscores that one’s
competence is dynamic and that the speakers’ pragmatic norms, behaviors, notions of
politeness and face sensitivities change over time.
Naima’s narratives of her experience with peer reviews also underscore the
importance of dyadic co-construction of pragmatic norms in an intercultural interaction.
In some cases it might not be enough if only one interlocutor makes an effort toward the
negotiation of norms. For example, in the following narrative Naima illustrates that even
158
when she is being very persistent in her requests, her partners do not provide her with
more feedback:
once - uhh - like a classmate with me - a Chinese classmate - wrote - you have- you have a good essay I like it - that’s a comment - for the whole essay and I said - please can you write another comment just - like - not a comment a compliment - if you can say - can- can you just complain about the e- the essay - can you just tell me anything about it - can you just - like read it more deeply and- and he said - I like it - and I said ok - I like it too (smiling) [haha] but I know that I’m having a mistakes and I- I don’t want - I- I want you to point me that mistake - probably I can see that’s a correct way but it’s a- it’s a mistake [um-hum] and still they they didn’t (laughter) didn’t put any comments for me [okay] and you know I just like every time every workshopping I just say it but - nothing happens In Naima’s experience, which she claims to be typical, reviewers provide neither
specific positive feedback, “a compliment”, nor negative feedback, “complain about the
essay”, despite multiple requests. It is possible that her choice of the words “compliment”
and “complain” confuse her reviewers, although this is not discourse data, so we cannot
be sure that Naima indeed uses these particular words in her requests. Other requests,
however, are unlikely to be misunderstood due to her lexical choices. Such utterances as,
“I want you to point me that mistake”, are quite explicit in informing her reviewers that
she wants their negative feedback. In other words, by making it explicit that she
welcomes negative feedback, Naima lets her reviewers know that such feedback will not
cause her face loss or that her other interactional goals, such as receiving feedback that
would help her improve her essay, take priority in this particular interaction. However,
even this strategy does not have the desired effect.
Naima’s laughter throughout this narrative indicates that she is not discouraged by
her partners’ behaviors, but she does not attribute their reluctance to provide feedback to
face concerns. She sees her partners’ behavior as a result of the lack of confidence in
159
their linguistic abilities: “they are not confident this is a right way - so they wa- they
don’t want like - do mistakes”. While this certainly is a plausible interpretation, provided
that her reviewer in the situation which she narrates is Chinese, the findings of Jiang’s
(2003) study suggest that the face-related explanation is just as, if not more, likely.
Jiang’s (2003) study of Chinese ESL students’ participation in peer reviews suggests that
reviewers’ face concerns might be so dominant that they might not provide negative
feedback even when explicitly and persistently asked by the essay writers (e.g., pp. 116-
117).
Thus, despite the fact that Naima informs her reviewers that her self-face
concerns have very low priority, or none at all, in this interaction, her partners appear to
be unwilling to abandon their frames of interpretation, adopt Naima’s perspective on the
desirable outcomes of this interaction, and negotiate interactional norms. Ironically, the
reviewers might have what they think are Naima’s best interests at heart as they consider
their actions as protecting her from face loss, but because of their unwillingness to adopt
her perspective on the interplay between relational and interactional goals, their actions
do not let Naima achieve her interactional goals and threaten their relationship because
she misinterprets their reasoning and intentions.
Preemptively Addressing Face Concerns
Mei, a 19-year-old female from China, who had been in the US for about 2 years
at the time of the study, used an indirect strategy to request more feedback from her
160
partner similar to the one used by Yanbo, that is, she chose to ask questions that elicit
more detailed negative feedback:
I may reask them some question like “What do you think of my essay? Do you understand what I am talking about? Which part is confused?” They may feel bad or uncomfortable to write bad commons, and I would let them know I am ok with all the advices. Mei interpreted the lack of negative feedback from her partner as a protective
measure: “They may feel bad or uncomfortable to write bad commons (comments)”, and
to reciprocate, employed indirectness as a way to protect her partner’s face. In the written
response, she used hints as the request strategy. As Trosborg (1994) explains, “[a]
speaker who does not want to state his/her impositive intent explicitly has resort to
hinting strategies … by asking a question, the requester can imply to his/her listener what
he/she wants done” (p. 192, italics in the original). Mei chose to ask questions about her
essay in order to let her partner know indirectly that she welcomes his/her criticism. Also,
in the context of peer reviews, the questions such as the ones asked by Mei: “What do
you think of my essay? Do you understand what I am talking about? Which part is
confused?”, are also intended to elicit specific feedback from the reviewer. On the one
hand, a reviewer might find them face-threatening as they leave very little room to avoid
an answer. On the other hand, the form of these questions still leaves the reviewer the
option to avoid providing negative feedback.
In real-life peer reviews Mei may also use a more direct way to make her partner
feel comfortable providing critical feedback. In the interview she explained how she
might assess the situation and plan the interaction to preemptively deal with face
concerns:
161
I think for Chinese cause - they may think uhh if - they write something bad for you and uh - like -- I dunno I’m good like -- when I ask someone to review my paper I will let them know you can write anything - like [uhum] any opinions you want to - you have and you can give me any opinions [uhum] but I don’t think all the people can accept opinions [uhum] cause I think some of the Chinese people don’t s- such opinions [uhum] cause when- cause you don’t know them well if you write something bad and it’s some - like if they don’t accept it’s - not very good for the - friendship I guess As Mei indicated in her interview, she typically preemptively informs her
reviewers of her expectations, so that they will not risk being in “wrong face”: “when I
ask someone to review my paper I will let them know you can write anything - like
[uhum] any opinions you want to - you have - and you can give me any opinions”. Mei
also anticipates that her partners might be uncomfortable receiving negative feedback, so
she preemptively asks those whose essays she is about to review what kind of feedback
they expect: “I would ask them do you- like do you want me to make all opinions I have
or - just go over the grammar or something”. The former strategy is primarily a protective
measure. The latter strategy, then, is primarily defensive, but it is also protective. Mei is
ensuring that she would not cause her partners face loss by providing more critical
feedback than they are prepared to take, while also learning about their expectations, so
that she would not find herself in “wrong face”.
Requesting information might be a very effective strategy in intercultural
interactions. As Meier (2003) suggests, in the context of an intercultural interaction, there
is a “potentially greater variety of unshared and unknown expectations for language
behavior” (p. 196). The need to negotiate these expectations is what underscores the
importance of having a repertoire of negotiation strategies as a part of one’s pragmatic
162
competence. It has been suggested that strategic competence is, in fact, a crucial
component of pragmatic competence in EIL/ELF (e.g., House, 2003a; Meier, 2003).
Also, according to Goffman, “it is the rules of the group and the definition of the
situation which determine how much feeling one is to have for face and how this feeling
is to be distributed among the faces involved” (1967, p. 6). In a multicultural ESL writing
classroom, one is likely to have very little, if any, knowledge of the other’s rules and
expectations. In this context, explicitly asking questions might be the most effective and
efficient way to gain insight into the other’s norms and expectations, considering that
students do not have sufficient opportunities for observations and inductive learning.
This short-term nature is typical for EIL interactions in general; and thus, explicit
requests for information might be very effective. However, as Naima’s example
illustrates, even explicit requests do not guarantee that the interlocutor will provide the
required information if that information is perceived as sensitive/offensive.
Summary
The fact that many participants claimed to have had experienced situations
identical or similar to the one described in CI 1 suggests that such situations are not
uncommon in peer reviews in multicultural writing classrooms, which points to
significant interactional as well as pedagogical problems. In terms of pedagogy, needless
to say that to benefit from a peer review, one has to be engaged in this activity, and if it is
common for the students to withdraw from this activity, we can hardly expect positive
effects. In terms of interaction, peer reviews appear to be a site of potential conflict as the
163
interactants’ expectations may clash, negative feelings toward each other may develop,
tensions may remain unresolved, and cultural stereotypes may arise or be reinforced.
Taken to the extreme, the desire to minimize offense and face-threat as much as
possible, which appears to be a characteristic of pragmatic competence of L2 speakers (cf.
Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993), might lead to the choice to opt out. In this study, 12 out of
20 participants indicated that they would opt out of any further interaction with their
partners on the topic of their drafts, although not all 12 gave politeness- or face-related
explanations for their choice. Opting out is an inadvisable choice of strategy for many
reasons. An obvious one has been addressed earlier: by opting out one might fail to
realize his or her communicative intentions (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Opting out of
interactions with their partners during peer reviews also means that L2 English speakers
would miss an opportunity to improve their draft and develop their writing skills.
Negative consequences of opting out of problematic situations might also include
the reinforcement of stereotypes and the missed opportunity to learn a new code element,
negotiate contrasting codes, and learn to appropriately manipulate different sets of code
elements for future interactions (Kotani, 2008, p. 354-355). In her study, Kotani has
found that Japanese learners of English often chose not to engage in so-called remedial
exchanges, complex speech events defined as “restorative sequences of behaviour
occurring in problematic situations” (Morris, 1985, p. 74, as cited in Kotani, 2008, p.
343), in the situations where they were the offended party. She has also found that
consequences of opting out were negative for the Japanese speakers: “their perception of
their difficulty expressing themselves in English stayed as it had been before, their
164
relationships with others did not develop, and their perception of the difference between
themselves and Americans was reinforced” (p. 354, italics in the original). The data in the
present study also indicate that clashing frames of interpretation and the participants’
avoidance of engaging in interaction to address their concerns and misunderstandings
caused by such clashes are likely to result in deeper misunderstanding and
stereotypization of cultural groups in addition to a missed opportunity to develop
pragmatic competence and negotiation skills.
When participants chose to engage in interaction, they did not exhibit systematic
awareness of differences and willingness and/or ability to negotiate expectations and
communicative norms within interactions. Rather, they tended to rely on their own
frames of interpretation and their own interpretations of the needs and concerns of their
interlocutors in communicative encounters, in some cases, despite the evidence of
differences between their own and their interlocutors’ interpretations of their needs and
concerns. In some cases, it led to misunderstanding and conflict. It appears that L2
English speakers’ ability to abandon their own familiar frames of interpretation and the
ability to develop intercultural frames that would allow them to interpret the interaction
from the perspective of their interlocutors are stronger determinants of the success of an
intercultural interaction than a positive orientation toward one’s interlocutor. In other
words, even when an L2 English speaker aims at being “polite” or “not offensive”, his or
her behavior might have the opposite effect if he/she fails to understand his/her
interlocutor’s communicative intentions, as is illustrated in Naima’s narrative of her
experience with Chinese classmates during peer reviews.
165
Finally, the data illustrate that a variety of face concerns and their interplay with
individuals’ interactional goals affect L2 English speakers’ communicative behavior and
choice of strategies. Thus, a more in-depth study of L2 English speakers’ politeness and
facework, especially in intercultural encounters, is highly needed. As the data and their
analysis indicate, the nature of L2 English speakers’ concepts of politeness and their
understanding of the relationship between politeness and face concerns is more complex
than can be accounted for by any one Politeness Theory, even such an influential one as
Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) or culture-specific ones, such as Gu’s (1990). As
postmodern approaches to politeness suggest, it appears necessary as well as more
fruitful to investigate “the ways in which (im)polite behaviour is evaluated and
commented on by lay members” (Watts, 2003, p. 9) rather than try to fit the speakers’
behavior in one or another existing Politeness Theory.
166
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
Summary of the Study
Situated within the paradigm of English as an International Language (EIL), this
study focused on one aspect of L2 English speakers’ pragmatic competence: linguistic
politeness. Politeness has received a substantial amount of attention in previous research,
and there is an impressive body of literature that includes empirical studies and
theoretical models, coming from a variety of scholarly fields and dealing with a variety of
languages and cultures. However, the EIL paradigm calls for a new perspective on the
phenomenon of politeness. Built on the recognition of World Englishes as legitimate
varieties of English, EIL rejects the “native speaker” model for English language
acquisition and the idea that any particular variety of English, already existing or
constructed, be designated as a lingua franca for international communication (cf.,
Sharifian, 2009).
Within EIL, communicative competence in general and pragmatic competence in
particular are seen as having a dynamic, flexible and open nature. As Canagarajah (2006)
suggests, “we need to orientate to English as a hybrid language. It is a multinational
language that constitutes diverse norms and systems, represented by the global
community of English speakers” (p. 209). The crucial aspect of communicative
competence in EIL, then, is the ability to negotiate differences that speakers of different
varieties of English bring to the interaction (Canagarajah, 2006; House, 2003a; McKay,
2009; Roberts & Canagarajah, 2009). In this light, politeness also needs to be
reconceptualized as a dynamic and negotiable construct. The awareness of differences
167
between the speakers of different varieties of English in general and their concepts of
politeness in particular combined with the ability to negotiate these differences in real-life
interactions are seen as more adequate predictors of positive outcomes of EIL interactions
than the mastery of particular politeness norms and behaviors.
Postmodern theories of politeness (e.g., Arundale, 2006; Eelen, 2001; Watts,
2003) offer valuable frameworks for the study of politeness as a dynamic construct, and
therefore were adopted in this study. However, as of yet there is little empirical research
done within these frameworks, especially in intercultural communication contexts where
the speakers are using their L2. This study represents an attempt to gain some insights
into the nature of politeness in these contexts.
Specifically, this study sought the answers to the following questions:
• What is the nature of L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness? Specifically,
how are these notions affected by the hybrid nature of L2 English speakers’
pragmatic competence?
• What is the place of politeness among other factors (e.g., interactional goals) that
affect L2 English speakers’ communicative behavior in interaction with other L2
English speakers? What is the place of politeness among other types of facework?
• How do L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness and their interaction with
other factors affect their performance in real-life situations that have potential for
misunderstanding and conflict?
Taking a social constructionist perspective, this study approached politeness as
socially constructed by L2 English speakers in interactions. Following Eelen’s (2001)
168
notion of politeness-as-practice, this study explored L2 English speakers’ processes of
construction of the notions of politeness, evaluations of politeness, and polite behaviors.
The data in this study were obtained through background questionnaires, open-
ended DCT-type written production questionnaires in the form of critical incidents, and
semi-structured informal interviews23. The data were analyzed qualitatively, drawing on a
number of theoretical frameworks, the main ones being discourse analysis (e.g., Gee,
2005) and ethnography of communication (e.g., Saville-Troike, 2002), complemented by
the theories of the “third place” (e.g., Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco et al., 1999) and
politeness and face(work) (e.g., Arundale, 2006, 2009; Goffman, 1967; Spencer-Oatey,
2007, 2009).
Summary of the Findings
To answer the first research question: “What is the nature of L2 English speakers’
notions of politeness? Specifically, how are these notions affected by the hybrid nature of
L2 English speakers’ pragmatic competence?”, the analysis of data was done within the
framework of the “third place” (e.g., Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco et al., 1999)24. In the
field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the “third place” is seen as a place
“between the native linguaculture and the target linguaculture”, which is “dynamic and is
being renegotiated with every intercultural interaction and with every opportunity for
new learning” (Lo Bianco et al., 1999, p. 181).
23 See Chapter 3 for a detailed description of data collection instruments and procedures. 24 See Chapter 4 for detailed data analysis and discussion.
169
The data in this study suggest that the concepts of politeness reflect the hybridity
of L2 English speakers’ pragmatic norms. Consistent with the idea of the “third place”,
the study participants’ pragmatic competence and the notions of politeness are indeed
drawing on the norms of their first language(s) and culture(s) as well as English and US
culture. However, the participants’ experiences of traveling and living in countries other
than their native country and the experience of communicating with other L2 English
speakers also contributed to their “third places”. Thus, in the case of EIL it appears
appropriate to suggest that the speakers’ “third places” are constructed as the places
between one’s own linguaculture(s) and the linguaculture(s) of his/her interlocutor(s)
rather than a single L2/C2.
All participants in this study exhibited evidence of hybridity of their pragmatic
competence and politeness, although they differed significantly in the ways they used
their L1/C1, English/US culture, and linguaculture(s) of their interlocutors in the
construction of this hybrid. They also differed in the level of awareness of the hybridity
of their pragmatic norms in general and politeness in particular. As Kramsch (1993) has
suggested,
[a]s they become more and more proficient in a second language and familiar
with a second culture, language learners try to articulate their new experience
within their old one, making it relevant to their own lives, one day this way, one
day that way, creating their own popular culture. This popular culture will be as
conservative or as progressive as each learner wishes it to be. (p. 238)
170
Consistent with this assumption, the participants in this study exhibited the creative
approach to the construction of their “third places”. In addition, some differences in
“third places” were observed among the participants who share the same L1/C1.
The analysis of data also identified some difficulties that L2 English speakers
experience in the construction of their “third places”. The lack of experience
communicating with other English speakers, L1 as well as L2, and the lack of emphasis
on metapragmatic awareness, cultural awareness and strategies to negotiate meaning in
the participants’ experience of learning English have led to gaps in the participants’
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence that hindered the successful
development of their “third places”.
To answer the second and the third research questions: “What is the place of
politeness among other factors (e.g., interactional goals) that affect L2 English speakers’
communicative behavior in interaction with other L2 English speakers? What is the place
of politeness among other types of facework?” and “How do L2 English speakers’
notions of politeness and their interaction with other factors affect their performance in
real-life situations that have potential for misunderstanding and conflict?”, the analysis
focused on the data pertaining to CI 1 “Peer Review” (see Appendix B)25.
This subset of data was chosen because it dealt with a communicative situation
which all participants had experienced and with which the researcher was well familiar.
In addition, it dealt with a context in which a number of relational and interactional goals
might become relevant and which presented a wide range of opportunities for facework
25 See Chapter 5 for detailed data analysis and discussion.
171
and the use of politeness evaluations and strategies. The analysis of the data was done
within the frameworks of facework (e.g., Goffman, 1967; Spencer-Oatey, 2009) and used
Agar’s (1994) notion of intercultural frames.
The data from written questionnaires and interviews confirmed that politeness and
face considerations play a crucial role in participants’ choices of behavioral strategies and
that behavioral strategies are based on the speakers’ evaluations of their own and their
partners’ face concerns and interactional goals. In addition, participants’ choices of
strategies were based on their interpretation of the reasons for the lack of
specific/negative feedback provided by their partner. In cases when the participants
attributed the lack of feedback to their partners’ concerns for the face of the participants
as feedback recipients, the participants prioritized the face concerns of their partners in
the choice of the follow-up strategy. Prioritizing other-face concerns in some cases
resulted in the choice of the most radical other-face-saving strategy: opting out of further
interaction to avoid any threat to the face of their partner. On the one hand, opting out is
not an unusual choice, but the risk of employing this strategy lies in the potential sacrifice
of the interactional goals for the sake of face concerns. In this particular situation,
participants who opted out of further interaction did not receive any specific feedback on
the drafts of their essays that could have helped them improve not only their drafts but
their writing skills in general26.
Face concerns and politeness considerations also affected the participants’ choices
of strategies in the cases when participants attributed the lack of feedback to reasons
26 While CI 1 “Peer Review” presented a hypothetical situation, many participants claimed that they had experienced similar situations in their ESL Composition classes.
172
other than face concerns. That is, even when the participants interpreted the lack of
feedback as their partners’ unwillingness to help them or lack of linguistic abilities, they
still chose the follow-up strategies that they considered to be polite.
The data in this study also suggest that the study of (linguistic) politeness might
benefit from being situated within a broader framework of facework as understood by
Arundale (2006, 2009), which includes not only face-saving strategies but “the full scope
of human facework, including the commonly examined strategic redress of face threat,
the much less examined use of outright threat, the largely overlooked phenomena of
outright face support, and the relatively unexamined indexing of social position apart
from threat or support” (Arundale, 2006, p. 195)27. The data in this study suggest that the
speakers utilize a wide range of facework strategies, from self-inflicted face loss to
“giving face” to the other, as a part of their polite behavior.
The data also confirm Spencer-Oatey’s (2009) claims that face concerns are
intertwined with interactional goals, that different speakers might prioritize different
goals in a given interaction, and that face concerns and interactional goals are dynamic.
Participants’ evaluations of the peer review situation showed that they indeed see
this situation as a site of potential misunderstanding and even conflict, and as such, tend
to be very careful in their behavioral choices. Almost all participants28 expressed face-
related concerns or specifically politeness considerations in explanations of their choices.
Even those who expressed a strong dissatisfaction with or disapproval of their partner’s
27 A similar approach is represented in the concept of relational work (e.g., Locher; 2006; Locher & Watts, 2005) or rapport management (e.g., Spencer-Oatey, 2002, 2005). 28 Sufficiently detailed data were not available for each participant as not all of those who responded to the written questionnaires participated in the interviews.
173
behavior attempted to conceal or indirectly express these feelings in order to prevent
overt argument or conflict with their partner. However, the data showed that in some
cases when there might have been no verbalized confrontation between the interlocutors,
the conflict might still have occurred as several participants dissatisfied with their
partners’ behaviors claimed that they would avoid working with this person in the future.
Some of these conflicts might have been the results of misunderstanding. As was
suggested by some participants’ responses, the lack of feedback might have been the
strategy to protect the feedback recipient’s face, but, having mistakenly ascribed the lack
of feedback to other reasons, the recipients developed negative feelings toward their
partners.
The main cause of these misunderstandings and conflicts appears to be the lack of
critical (inter)cultural awareness. The majority of participants relied on their own frames
of interpretation to make sense of the situation, interpret the behavior of their partners,
and select a strategy to engage (or not) in further interaction. Few participants attempted
to take a more open-minded perspective, apply a frame that would offer alternative
evaluations of the situation, and consider alternative explanations of their partners’
behavior.
The findings of this study suggest that in EIL interactions there is no “correct”
behavior that would be a fail-safe choice across interactions due to the complex interplay
of the speakers’ communicative goals and differences in their communicative
expectations. Even the most positive attitude toward the other and an attempt to act in a
way that one understands as “nice”, “polite”, and that which will “not hurt” the other
174
might have a diametrically opposite effect if one’s actions contradict the other’s
expectations and goals. For example, the data showed that even when one’s reason for
not providing critical feedback during peer review is to protect the other’s face, this is an
inappropriate choice of behavior if for the other the interactional goals of receiving
feedback to improve his or her draft and writing abilities take precedence over self-face
concerns.
These data also suggest that a speaker’s attempt to be polite might have the
opposite effect not simply because the other person misinterprets this intent. The very
notions of “misinterpretation” and “intent” are far from straightforward, especially in EIL
contexts. As the situation narrated by Naima29 illustrated, the problem arises not when
one fails to recognize the other’s behavior as a politeness strategy, but when the
interlocutors refuse to engage in the negotiation of each other’s expectations and
communicative norms in an interaction.
To create a “third place” comfortable for all involved, each interlocutor should do
her or his part in the negotiation of norms, so that the interlocutors would meet each other
half-way, so to speak. All interlocutors should equally engage in the negotiation of norms
in a particular interaction. Suggesting that one has “misinterpreted” the “intent” of the
other might imply that the other should have accepted the other’s goals, communicative
expectations, and notion of appropriateness to govern this particular interaction and
should have adjusted his or her behavior to satisfy the other. However, requiring one
interlocutor to adjust his or her behavior to match the expectations of the other is just as
29 See Chapter 5 for Naima’s narrative and a more detailed discussion of this example.
175
inappropriate as claiming that one’s pragmatic norms and notions of politeness are more
correct or legitimate than the other’s.
Pedagogical Implications
As the data in this study illustrate, L2 speakers of English are capable of
constructing their very own “third places”, although on some occasions they appear to be
unconscious of the processes through which they have built these “third places” (cf.
Kramsch, 1993). However, some participants in this study exhibited difficulties in the
process of their “third place”-building. Moreover, in some cases, the participants were
not aware of the problems with their communicative behavior and their “third places”.
In addition, some participants who exhibited the ability to “shuttle” between
different communities (cf. Canagarajah, 2006) appeared not to realize its full potential.
Instead of strategically drawing on the repertoire of their communicative competence
depending on the context of the interaction, the participants in this study appeared to be
using their repertoires randomly, and thus the success of their real-life interactions is
highly unpredictable. These examples suggest that while L2 English speakers are capable
of constructing “third places” on their own through observation and participation in
interactions, they could benefit from teachers’ help in acquiring the skills and awareness
necessary for effective “third place”-building.
Also, the data in this study illustrate that L2 English speakers do not exhibit
systematic awareness of differences and willingness and/or ability to negotiate the norms
within interactions. These findings support Kramsch’s (1993) claim that “[i]n most
176
foreign language classrooms, interculturality is not being taught as a systematic
apprenticeship of difference” (p. 235). Rather, L2 English speakers defer to their own
frames of interpretation in EIL interactions and rely on their own interpretations of the
needs and concerns of their interlocutors in these communicative encounters, in some
cases despite the evidence of differences between their own and their interlocutors’
interpretations of their needs and concerns. These examples further reinforce the need to
address these issues in English language classrooms. The models of intercultural
communicative competence such as Byram’s (1997) offer a pedagogical framework that
can effectively target these problematic issues. Teachers who wish to assist their students
in the development of their “third places” can also draw on the critical language
pedagogy (e.g., Kramsch, 1993).
However, the adoption of the EIL perspective might require more substantial
shifts in the way that the teaching of English is currently approached. For example,
Canagarajah (2006) suggests that instead of teaching English as a “target language”
educators should teach “in terms of a repertoire of language competence” (pp. 209-110,
italics in the original). Teaching towards such a repertoire does not imply teaching every
variety of English used in the world but rather developing a deeper language awareness
and the ability to negotiate differences between different varieties (ibid., p. 210). This
new pedagogical approach to English language teaching would help learners view
language as process rather than product and would require some major changes in
pedagogical goals and approaches:
• from mastery of grammar rules to metalinguistic awareness;
177
• from focus on rules/conventions to focus on strategies;
• from correctness to negotiation;
• from language/discourse as static to language/discourse as changing;
• from language as homogeneous to language as hybrid;
• from language as context-bound to language as context-transforming;
• from language as transparent/instrumental to language as representational;
• from L1 or C1 as problem to L1 or C1 as resource. (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 210)
To summarize, the data in this study exposed some crucial gaps in L2 English
speakers’ pragmatic competence that endanger the success of their intercultural
interactions. It is important for English language teachers to be aware of the problems
that their students experience in daily interactions in order to address them in language
classrooms. It is believed that pedagogical intervention that follows the frameworks
outlined by Byram (1997), Canagarajah (2006), and Kramsch (1993) might benefit the
students while still allowing them to use English critically and creatively, helping them to
communicate successfully with a variety of interlocutors while not suppressing their own
identities, values and needs.
Significance of the Study
This study expands the body of scholarship on EIL, Intercultural Communication,
Politeness, SLA, TESOL, and Interlanguage Pragmatics. It sought to bring the insights
from each of these fields to explore the notions of politeness of L2 English speakers. As
178
the review of the pertinent literature indicates30, scholars in each of these areas have
contributed to our understanding of this phenomenon, but because they have been
approaching it from different epistemological, theoretical and methodological
perspectives, we are still far from having a comprehensive picture of it. It is believed that
this goal is best achieved by adopting an interdisciplinary perspective, and therefore such
an interdisciplinary perspective was taken in this study.
This study contributes to the fields of EIL and Intercultural Communication by
investigating the nature of pragmatic competence and notions of politeness of L2 English
speakers, which are of decisive importance for their communicative competence in
intercultural encounters. According to Sharifian (2009), “communication across
Englishes [is] an issue which lies at the heart of EIL” (p. 4, italics in the original).
Therefore, it is crucial to understand what competencies are required to facilitate this
communication. Sharifian (2009) also notes that while EIL is closely related to the field
of Intercultural Communication, the research on intercultural communication in English
to date has primarily focused on the interactions between L1 and L2 English speakers (p.
4). He argues that “what is needed in the EIL paradigm is an expansion of the scope of
speech communities and interlocutors engaged in intercultural communication, especially
as most instances of intercultural communication in English today takes place (sic.)
between its non-native speakers” (Sharifian, 2009, p. 4). This study was designed to
bridge this gap by investigating the development of pragmatic competence in interaction
between L2 English speakers who belong to different speech communities.
30 See Chapter 2 for a detailed review of the literature.
179
However, consistent with the EIL paradigm (cf. Sharifian, 2009, pp. 4-5), this
study did not entirely exclude L1 English speakers from its scope. As the data indicate,
every opportunity to engage in or to observe an interaction might become an opportunity
for learning and expanding their communicative repertoire for L2 English speakers. Their
pragmatic competence and nature of their concepts of politeness might be affected by a
communicative encounter with an L1 as well as an L2 English speaker, so that even in
interactions with other L2 English speakers they might draw on the strategies developed
in previous interactions with L1 English speakers.
Thus, this study further impacts the field of EIL by providing some empirical
support to the claim that L1 or “native” speakers of English should not be excluded from
the scope of research, which is one of the main premises that distinguish EIL from the
closely related field of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). As Jenkins (2006) claims,
“ELF researchers specifically exclude mother tongue speakers from their data collection”
(as cited in Roberts & Canagarajah, 2009, p. 210). However, even though it can be
argued that the majority of interactions in English are presently conducted between L2
speakers (cf. McKay, 2009; Sharifian, 2009), it cannot be presumed that an L2 English
speaker will never engage into or observe an interaction involving an L1 English speaker,
especially considering the current unprecedented spread of English across countries and
domains of use. Most importantly, while excluding L1 English speakers from the scope
of the research might have had some positive results, such as questioning the deference
given to “native speaker” norms across all contexts of language use, the researchers who
180
exclude L1 English speakers might overlook the significance of their contribution to L2
English speakers’ communicative repertoires.
This work also contributes to the body of scholarship on politeness by bridging
the gap in research on the speakers’ own concepts of politeness. As Eelen (2001) pointed
out more than a decade ago, such research had been (and still remains) most scarce in
politeness studies (p. 254). While a number of studies in interlanguage and cross-cultural
pragmatics have explored the polite behaviors of L2 English speakers, their notions of
politeness have rarely been addressed.
While the empirical work on politeness has been dominated in the last several
decades by an influential Politeness Theory of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), this
study drew on the postmodern approaches to face and politeness (e.g., Arundale, 2006,
2009; Eelen, 2001; Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2009; Watts, 2003). This study sought to
address some of the criticisms expressed by the postmodern approaches to politeness,
specifically the problem of top-down definitions of politeness. While there have been a
number of definitions of politeness as a scholarly concept suggested by different
frameworks, “ranging from a general principle of language use governing all
interpersonal aspects of interaction, to the use of specific linguistic forms and formulae”
(Eelen, 2001, p. i), too often no attempt was made to investigate the relation of the
definition of politeness adopted by a particular framework to the speakers’ own
conceptualizations of politeness (cf. Watts et al, 1992; Watts, 2003). Watts (2003) rejects
politeness “as a concept which has been lifted out of the realm of lay conceptualizations
of what constitutes polite and impolite behaviour and how that behaviour should be
181
evaluated” (p. 11). He argues that “[if] there is a scientific concept which transcends our
everyday notions of (im)polite behaviour, to call it ‘politeness’ is not only confusing, it is
also misleading” (p. 11). Following these criticisms, rather than adopting any particular
definition of politeness, the present study explored the speakers’ own notions of
politeness. It has specifically focused on the L2 English speakers’ notions of politeness in
the context of interactions in English and offered some insights into the nature of these
notions that appear to be hybrid and dynamic.
In addition, this study has significant implications for the field of SLA, TESOL
and Interlanguage Pragmatics in that it identifies some problematic areas in L2 English
speakers’ pragmatic competence that should be of interest to English language teachers
who aim to assist their learners in the development of intercultural competence so that
they would be successful communicators in a variety of contexts and with a variety of
English-speaking interlocutors. Also, this study makes an argument for a paradigm shift
in TESOL. The data from this study suggest that teaching toward intercultural
communicative competence (e.g., Byram, 1997) or a “repertoire of language
competence” (e.g., Canagarajah, 2006) might be more beneficial for L2 English learners
than the traditional approaches in light of the global spread of English.
Limitations of the Present Study and Directions for Future Research
While this work has provided some valuable insights into L2 English speakers’
pragmatic competence and concepts of politeness, it has a number of limitations that need
to be kept in mind in the interpretation and use of its findings.
182
First of all, the data for this study were obtained through the written
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, but no real-life spontaneous expressions
and evaluations of politeness were collected. As Eelen (2001) suggests, (im)politeness
evaluations obtained in natural settings would be an important contribution to the study
of politeness. Elicited evaluations, such as the ones obtained in the present study, might
be a necessity as speakers rarely verbalize their evaluations of (im)politeness in everyday
interactions, but they “introduce particular social aspects and motivations that warrant
their classification as separate social practices” (Eelen, 2001, p. 255). Thus, it is
important to remember that the evaluations of politeness obtained in this study might
differ from the evaluations expressed spontaneously in natural settings.
In addition, while written questionnaires are considered useful for gathering
information about both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of the speakers
(cf. Kasper, 1999, p. 84), the expressions of politeness and data on polite behaviors
obtained through questionnaires might differ from the ones utilized by the speakers in
real-life interactions. Also, written responses do not allow the researcher to capture the
pragmatic features of the oral interactive discourse, features of speech production, and
non-verbal behaviors of the speakers that may have pragmatic import (cf. Kasper, 1999, p.
80). Therefore, future studies would benefit from employing a wider variety of data
collection techniques, complementing questionnaires and interviews with authentic
spoken discourse data, preferably collected via videorecording in order to capture the
non-verbal elements of interactions.
183
The analysis of data from these recordings will need to take longer discourse as a
unit of analysis rather than a single utterance or speech act, if it is to follow the
postmodern approaches to politeness, which have suggested that politeness is dynamic,
dyadic, and interactionally achieved (e.g., Arundale, 2006; Haugh, 2007; Watts, 2003).
The present study was designed to expand the unit of analysis by eliciting participants’
examples of their polite behaviors/utterances situated within a larger discourse of a
communicative event, although questionnaire responses were largely limited to individual
utterances. Besides, elicited examples or even spontaneous narratives offered by
participants that described their real-life communicative encounters cannot replace
naturally occurring interaction because these discourses are reconstructed from memory
and might be affected by the data collection procedures and setting. Therefore, the data
obtained in this study have to be understood in the specific context of its setting (cf.
Eelen., 2001, p. 256).
Secondly, because this study was conducted in a specific context with a specific
group of participants, its findings are not generalizable to other contexts or other L2
English speakers. Studies conducted in other contexts and with other participants might
produce different results. Specifically, the participants in this study came from ESL
Composition classes at a major Southwestern university. While they shared some
characteristics, such as learning English in their home countries in an EFL environment,
and had some experience living in the US and interacting with other L2 English speakers
in their multicultural ESL composition classes, there were significant differences between
the participants as well, from the duration of English language study in their home
184
countries, to the opportunities for interaction with other L1 and L2 English speakers, to
the duration of stay in the US by the time of the study. While such diversity of
experiences exhibited by the participants in this study represents the reality of L2 English
speakers’ life experiences (as it might be said that no two L2 English speakers’ life
experiences are exactly alike), future studies might benefit from a more systematic
approach to the selection of the participants, so that the effects of their previous
experiences on their concepts of politeness could be investigated.
Finally, one specific suggestion for future research introduced in Chapter 5
deserves to be reiterated here. Studies of pragmatic competence and behavior have
largely neglected the pragmatic strategy of opting out despite some calls to study not only
“the said” but also “the unsaid” responses of the speakers (Marti, 2006, p. 1838). The
studies that included opting out in their scope have suggested that is not an unusual
choice of strategy and that it offers valuable insights into the speakers’ pragmatic
competence and behavior (e.g., Bonikowska, 1988; Marti, 2006; Olshtain & Weinbach,
1993). This study employed the written questionnaire design that allowed participants to
opt out of engaging in an interaction, and this strategy was used by at least some of the
participants in all situations in which they were the initiator of the interaction31. The only
situations in which opting out was not used by any of the participants were those in which
the interaction had already been initiated by their interlocutor. Opting out is a behavior
that is not easily observed in spoken interaction, so researchers might need to utilize other
techniques, such as open-ended discourse completion tasks (DCTs) and interviews, but
31 See Chapter 5 for a more detailed analysis of participants’ opting out behavior in CI 1 “Peer Response”.
185
the study of opting out can contribute to our understanding of L2 English speakers'
pragmatic behavior as well as expose the problems they experience in the development of
pragmatic competence and during their interactions in intercultural communication
encounters (cf. Kotani, 2008).
In summary, despite some limitations of this work, it provides directions for
future research that will complement the findings of this study and deepen our
understanding of L2 English speakers’ pragmatic competence and concepts of politeness
in relation to the effect they have on their interactions with other English speakers, both
L1 and L2.
186
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire 1.
Please answer the following questions. All personal identification information will be kept confidential.
1. Name: 2. Age: 3. Gender: 4. Course of study at the U of A: 3. Please list your native language(s) and other languages you speak (identify proficiency level, e.g., beginner, intermediate, advanced): 5. How many years have you been studying English? 6. Where have you been studying English? Please list all the places including the ones in your home country, the US, and other countries (e.g., school, university, summer school, CESL): 7. What are your reasons for studying English? 8. What do you think it means “to know English well” or “to be proficient in English”? 9. Do you think you know English well? 10. What is the most difficult thing for you when you speak English? 11. How long have you been in the US? 12. Please list any other countries, not including your home country and the US, that you have been to and indicate how long you have been in those countries: 13. If you have been to countries other than the US and your home country, what language(s) did you speak there? 14. Please describe briefly with whom you speak English and for what purpose(s) now that you are in the US: 15. How are you planning to use English in the future?
187
APPENDIX B: CRITICAL INCIDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire 2. Instructions: Please read carefully the situations described below and write responses to the questions following each situation. Maybe you have been in a similar situation, and maybe not. If you have been in a similar situation, write down how you behaved and what you said (if anything) in the space provided. Also, please explain why you did and/or said that. If you haven’t been in such a situation, try to imagine what you would do and what you would say (if anything) and write it in the space provided. Also, please write a brief explanation of why you would do and/or say that. There are no right and wrong answers, so please write what you think you would really say or do and why. Please complete this task on your own. (And there’s no need to worry about grammar.) Note: In each situation, the other person involved is described as an “international student.” That means a student who is not a native speaker of English, not an American, and not from the same country as you are. 1. In your English Composition class, you have been working with a partner, another international student, reviewing each other’s essay drafts. You have been trying hard to help your partner, writing detailed comments on the draft. However, when you get your draft back, you see that your partner has not written any useful comments except for “good job!” at the end of the draft, even though you know that your draft is far from being good at this point and still has a lot of problems. Would you say anything to your partner? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 2. You have a roommate who is also an international student. Usually, you get along pretty well, but there is one problem. Your roommate always calls his/her family around midnight on Sundays and talks for a couple of hours. She/he talks quite loudly and you can’t sleep, but you have an 8am class on Monday. Would you say anything to your roommate? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 3. One of your classmates, another international student, has borrowed from you $20 and promised to return it the next day. It has been two weeks from that day now, and the student still has not returned the money and has not said anything to you about it. What would you do? Would you say anything to that student? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________
188
4. In one of your classes, with several hundred students in a lecture hall, the teacher is lecturing on a topic related to your country. At some point, the teacher stops and asks the students in the audience if any of them have been to this country and could share their experience. You don’t feel like speaking in front of such a big audience, so you don’t volunteer. Suddenly, a student sitting next to you, another international student with whom you have worked on a group project before, gets up and tells the professor that you are from that country. Upon hearing that, the professor asks you to come to the front. You end up going there and answering teacher’s questions while everybody else is listening. What do you think about the actions of that student? Would you say anything to that student? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: _______________________________________________________________________ 5. In one of your classes you have been paired up with another international student to work on a presentation. You both have done a good job on preparing that presentation, but on the day when you are scheduled to present, your partner doesn’t show up. You can’t make that presentation alone because you don’t have all the materials, so you end up not presenting. Your teacher says that the presentation cannot be rescheduled and both you and your partner lose points for this assignment, which is 10% of the grade for the class. Would you say anything to your partner when you see your partner next time? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 6. At your part-time job, one of other student-workers, who is also an international student, approaches you and asks you for a favor: to work a 3-hour shift on Saturday. That student has some business to attend to and has to miss Saturday’s shift, but has to find a substitute to avoid problems with the manager. On the one hand, you don’t have any special plans for that Saturday, but on the other hand, you don’t really want to work on Saturday. What would you do? Would you agree to substitute for that person? Please explain why yes or why not. Please write down what you would say to that person and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 7. In one of your classes you have been assigned a project on which you have to work with a partner. Right after the class, a classmate, who is also an international student, approaches you and suggests that you work on this project together. This student seems to be a nice and smart person, but you don’t know this student very well. Also, you have been actually thinking about working with another student whom you know better. What would you do? Would you agree to work with the student who approached you? Please explain why yes or why not. Please write down what you would say to that student and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________
189
8. You had a complicated homework assignment for one of your classes. You have worked hard to complete it, and you think that you have done a good job. You are confident that you will get a good grade for it. When you come to class on the day this assignment is due, you take it out of your bag and put it in front of you. A classmate sitting next to you, who is also an international student, sees your completed homework and asks for your permission to look at it and copy some answers. Would you let your classmate see and copy your homework? Please explain why yes or why not. Then, please write down what you would say to your classmate and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 9. You have hurt your hand and temporarily can’t do any writing in your English Composition class. When you tell about it to your teacher, the teacher gives you an extension on assignments but also pairs you up with one of your classmates, another international student, who volunteers to take notes for you during this class. What would you say to that student? Please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 10. You are working on a project for one of your classes in a group with other international students. One of them suggests doing something that you disapprove of: you think that your groupmate’s suggestion contradicts the assignment and that it will make the project worse, so you all will get lower grades. What would you do? How would you respond to your groupmate’s suggestion? Would you say anything? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please write down what you would say and briefly explain why you would say it: ________________________________________________________________________ 11. Can you remember a situation similar to the ones described above that has happened between you and some other international student? Please describe that situation below in as detailed manner as you can. Who was that other person? What was the relationship between the two of you? What happened between you? Where did it happen? What did you do in that situation? What did the other person do? What did you say? What did the other person say? How did you feel about the situation? What did you think about your behavior and the other person’s behavior? What did you think about the things you said to each other? ________________________________________________________________________
190
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Sample list of questions for the discussion of selected CIs and the retrospective account/narrative of a CI-type of encounter:
• In the situation #... you wrote “…” Could you explain why you decided to do … (or say “…”)?
• Why do you think that it was the best thing to do (say) in this situation? • You have mentioned that you would say “…” because it is polite. What do you
think makes it polite? Why do you think it is important to be polite in this situation?
• What if the other person was not your classmate but a good friend of yours? Would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• What if the other person was much older than you are? Would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• What if the other person was from the same country as you are? Would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• What if the other person was an American? Would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• What if the situation took place in another country, not the US, would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• What if there were other people listening? Would you still do/say the same thing? (Would it still be polite?)
• Do you try to be polite when you speak? Always? What affects you decision to be or not to be polite?
• In your description of the situation that you have been in you mentioned that you said “…” Could you explain why you decided to say it? What did the … (interlocutor) respond?
• After the … (interlocutor) told you “…” what did you answer? And then what did she/he say? What did you think about it?
• In your description of the situation that you have been in you mentioned that you were displeased/surprised/... by the behavior of … (interlocutor). Could you explain what made you feel that way?
• What would you have done/said if you were … (interlocutor)? Why would you do/say that?
• What if a situation like this (in the CI #... or in the narrative) happened to your friend and your friend asked you for advice? If your friend asked: “What should I do/say in this situation?” what would you advise? Would you tell your friend that it is an appropriate thing to say to anybody? In any situation?
Sample list of questions addressing the notions of politeness:
• In your own words, explain what you think the word “politeness” means.
191
• Do you have a word or words that mean(s) similar thing in your language? What is that word(s)? Could you write it down for me? How is this word(s) different from/similar to “politeness”?
• Could you give some examples of things that you would call “polite” or people who you would call “polite”? Is that “polite” in the English sense or … (participant’s native language) sense?
• Do you think that when you try to be polite you do it differently when you speak in English from when you speak in … (participant’s native language(s))?
• Did your English teachers talk with you about what the word “politeness” means? Did they teach you to be polite in English? Do you always follow what you have been taught? Why yes or why not?
• Do you think it is important to be polite when you are talking with someone? In your native language? In English?
• Do you think that people should try to be polite when they talk to others? To anyone? In any situation?
• Could you give a couple of examples of what you would do or say when you want to be polite while talking with someone in English? What makes … polite? Does that depend on who that “someone” is? On what exactly does it depend? Could you give an example?
• Do you think that your ideas of what is polite ever change? What makes them change? Could you give an example?
192
APPENDIX D: RECRUITMENT SPEECH
I am here to invite you to participate in a study that explores the use of English by speakers of English as a second or foreign language in the situations of intercultural communication. You are asked to participate because you are the speakers of English as a second language, and your participation in this study will be invaluable. It will enrich the data and will help improve the teaching of English as a foreign language and will help English language learners to develop English language skills that would help them communicate better. There will be no risks for you while participating in this study, and before you begin your participation you will sign the consent form that explains the study and what you will be doing during it. Your participation will be highly appreciated, but it is completely voluntary – you do not have to do it if you do not want to - and whether you participate or not will not affect your standing in or grades for this class. Any person who is 18 or older can participate in this study, and you do not have to worry about your English language proficiency – this study looks at how you use English regardless of whether you are an intermediate or advanced speaker. Also, if you agree to participate but later change your mind, you can withdraw from the study at any point with no consequences for you. If you agree to participate, there will be two parts in this study. The first part is written, and in this part you will fill out two questionnaires. The first one has some questions about your experience of learning and using English, and in the second you will read and respond to several situations that could happen with a person in intercultural communication - you will be asked to write how you would behave and what you would say if you were in such a situation. The second part of the study is oral. In this part, you will meet with me individually to talk about your responses to the questionnaires and talk more about your ideas about intercultural communication and your experience of using English. You can choose to participate in either the first one or both parts of the study. For the first part, you will be able to take the questionnaires home with you and you will have 7 days to complete those tasks and return them to me. And if you would like to participate in the second part of the study, we will schedule a one-hour interview, at your convenience, after you return to me your filled out questionnaires. The interviews will be audio recorded to make sure that your answers to the questions are represented accurately in my analysis. There will be no direct benefits to you from this study, but you will be compensated for your participation with a ten-dollar gift certificate for each part of the study. If you are interested in participating, here is my contact information [distributing cards with PI’s e-mail and phone number]. Write me an e-mail or give me a call and we will schedule a time when you come to my office and sign the consent form and receive your questionnaires. Also feel free to contact me at any time if you have any questions about this study or your participation in it.
193
APPENDIX E: TRANSCRIPTION NOTATIONS R stands for the researcher
[text] (text in square brackets) - researcher’s back-channeling during the participant’s speech (e.g., “one from where I grew up [uhum] and one from from the American ways”)
(text) (text in parenthesis) - non-verbal behavior or the researcher’s note on the speaker’s verbal behavior (e.g., (trails off) indicates that the participant’s utterance has faded away)
… (ellipsis mark) - omitted excerpt
- (single dash between the words) - noticeable but very brief pause, approximately less than one second (e.g., “I think it is mean - like - can you write something - that sounds mean”)
text- (single dash latched to a word, a part of a word, or a letter) - self-correction (e.g., “if we s- if both of us say all things very directly”)
-- (double dash between the words) - pause approximately more than one second (e.g., “like -- I dunno I’m good like -- when I ask someone to review my paper I will let them know you can write anything”)
* (asterisk) - unintelligible word, one * (asterisk) per word
? (question mark) - questioning/rising intonation
[ (right square bracket) - overlapping speech (e.g.: “R: aha so you have changed this [this behavior right? Ryan: [yeah it depends on the people I’m trea- I’m dealing with”)
194
REFERENCES
Agar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 221-237.
Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23(4), 281-300.
Arundale, R. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–154.
Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193-216.
Arundale, R. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 33-54). London: Equinox.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453-1469.
Bhabha, H. (1990). The third space. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity, community, culture, difference (pp. 207-221). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In R. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich (Eds.) Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 255-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olstein, E. (1984). “Request and Apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Bonikowska, M. P. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics 9 (2), 169-181.
Bradford, L., Allen, M., & Beisser, K. R. (2000). Meta-analysis of intercultural communication competence research. World Communication, 29(1), 28-51.
Bredella, L. (2003). For a flexible model of intercultural understanding. In G. Alred, M. Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 31-49). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
195
Brislin, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Fact-to-face interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in social interaction, (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). An interview with Suresh Canagarajah by R. Rudby and M. Saraceni. In R. Rudby & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 200-211). London: Continuum.
Casmir32, F. L. (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 91-116.
Chen, G., & Starosta, W. J. (2008). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 215-237). New York: Routlege.
Cohen, A. D. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.) Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 302-327). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, J. McE. (2006). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57(4), 611-649.
Delanoy, W. (2006). Transculturality and (inter-)cultural learning in the EFL classroom. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Cultural studies in the EFL classroom (pp. 233-248). Heidelberg: Winter.
Ebsworth, T., & Ebsworth, M. E. (1997). Island Puerto Rican and continental American responses to critical incidents: An intercultural study of language, norms, and values. Research on language and Social Interaction, 30(3), 193-233.
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
32 The article has a typo in the spelling of the name of the author: the name is spelled CASRNIR instead of CASMIR.
196
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64-81). New York: Oxford University Press.
Feghali, E. (1997). Arab culture communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 345–378.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236.
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 295-317.
Ho, D. Y. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 269-286). Albany: SUNY Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holtgraves, T. (2005). Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 73-93.
House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 245-267). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
197
House, J. (2003a). Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: A case of English as a lingua franca. In A. Martínez, E. Usó & A. Fernández (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 133-160). Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
House, J. (2003b). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
House, J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2), 141-145.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248.
Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992). The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In R. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich (Eds.) Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 281-297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jiang, W. (2003). Peer review in ESL writing: Attitudes and cultural concerns. PhD Dissertation, Ball State University, Indiana.
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kallia, A. (2004). Linguistic politeness: The implicature approach. Multilingua, 23, 145-169.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1999). Data collection in pragmatics research. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 18(1), 71-107.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 3-17). New York: Oxford University Press.
Knapp, K. (1987). English as an international lingua franca and the teaching of intercultural communication. In W. Lörsche & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1022-1039). Tübingen: Narr.
198
Knapp, K. (2002). The fading out of the non-native speaker. Native speaker dominance in lingua-franca-situations. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 217-244). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Kobayashi, H, & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martínez, E. Usó & A. Fernández (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 161-184). Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Kotani, M. (2008). Reinforced codes and boundaries: Japanese speakers' remedial episode avoidance in problematic situations with ‘Americans’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (4), 339-363.
Kramsch, C. (2003). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leech, G. (1983). The principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite – observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4(4), 491-515.
Li, X., & Girvan, A. (2004). The “Third Place”: Investigating an ESL classroom culture. TESL Canada Journal, 22(1), 1-15.
Liu, J., and Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A. J., Crozet, C. (Eds.) (1999). Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through language education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Retrieved July 7, 2009. from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/d2/ba.pdf
Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: the discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25(3), 249-267.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9-33.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
199
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Discussion note: Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1515-1521.
Matveev, A. V. (2004). Describing intercultural communication competence: In-depth interviews with American and Russian managers. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 55-62.
Maurais, J. (2003). Towards a new linguistic world order33. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalizing world (pp. 13-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKay, S. L. (2009). Pragmatics and EIL pedagogy. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) English as an International Language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 227-241). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Meeuwis, M. (1994). Nonnative-nonnative intercultural communication: An analysis of instruction sessions for foreign engineers in a Belgian company. Multilingua, 13, 59-82.
Meier, A. (2003). Posting the banns: A marriage of pragmatics and culture in foreign and second language pedagogy and beyond. In A. Martínez, E. Usó & A. Fernández (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 185-210). Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Meier, A. (2004). Has ‘Politeness’ Outlived Its Usefulness? Vienna English Working Papers, 13(1), 5-22.
Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. In A. Fetzer & K. Pittner (Eds.), Conversation analysis: New developments. Linguistik Online, 5(1/00), special issue. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://linguistik-online.com/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM
33 In the table of contents for the volume, the title of this chapter is listed as “Towards a new global linguistic order?”
200
Meierkord, C. (2002). ‘Language stripped bare’ or ‘linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua franca conversation. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 109-133). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Nelson, G. L., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 39-57.
Nelson, G.L., & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown & Levinson’s face: How it can - and can’t - help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 463-492.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P., and Canagarajah, S. (2009). Broadening the ELF paradigm: Spoken English in an international encounter. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) English as an International Language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 209-226). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ruben, B. D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 229-240.
Saville-Troike, M. (2002). The ethnography of communication. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 351-382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, B. (2002). The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 269-302). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Sercu, L. (2004). Assessing intercultural competence: A framework for systematic test development in foreign language education and beyond. Intercultural Education, 15(1), 73-89.
201
Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: An overview. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) English as an International Language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 1-18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1994). Gender perspectives on facework: Simplistic stereotypes vs. complex realities. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 159-207). Albany: SUNY Press.
Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 178-223). Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, L. (Ed.). (1983). Readings in English as an international language. New York: Pergamon Press.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95-119.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639-656.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009). Face, identity and interactional goals. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 137-154). London: Equinox.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed.) (pp. 375-387). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sridhar, K. K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2009). Facework collision in intercultural communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 227-249). London: Equinox.
202
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 1-17). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-389.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different language, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.
Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 207-224). London: Sage.
Woodfield, H. (2008). Problematising discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation and Research in education, 21(1), 43-69.
Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
